§rom  flic  fetfirarg  of 
(professor  ^amucf  (ttttffer 
in  (ntcmorg  of 

3u£)<je  J=&amuef  (ttttffer  Q0reefttnrtbge 
(presented  6b 

^amuef  (ttttffer  QSrecfttnrtbge  feong 
fo  flic  £tfirarg  of 

(prtrtcefon  2#eofogtcaf  ^emtitarg 


BX  8  .S3 7 

Schmucker 


1 799-lS73 
rican 


/ 


» 


V  ' 


*<> .  ’  i 


w 


- 


«  • 


'  ■  *  -  4 


*.  •■  :>•  \  - . 


-/  .. 


Vi 


V  * 


t,  •  ,  .  ' 

,  -  >;:-T- 


j* 


*.  .A  i  £ 


APPEAL 


TO  THE 

AMERICAN  CHURCHES, 


WITH  A  PLAN  FOR 


CATHOLIC  UNION. 


y 

BY  S.  S.  SCHMUCKER,  D.  D. 

Professor  of  Didactic  and  Polemic  Theology  in  the  Theol.  Sem.  of  Gen.  Synod 
of  the  Lutheran  Church,  Gettysburg,  Pa . 


NEW  YORK: 
GOULD  &  NEWMAN: 
,1  8  3  8. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  Appeal  is  affectionately  addressed  to  the 
American  churches  of  every  denomination,  in  the  conviction, 
that  the  subject  of  which  it  treats,  is  of  incalculable  importance 
to  the  conversion  of  the  world  ;  and  in  the  hope,  that  the  plan 
of  union  proposed,  is  accordant  with  the  spirit  of  the  divine 
Master.  On  the  American  churches,  so  happily  exempt  from 
all  entrammeling  alliance  with  civil  government,  God  seems 
specially  to  have  devolved  the  duty  to  review  the  history  of  his 
visible  kingdom,  and,  instructed  by  the  lessons  of  former  ages, 
to  adopt  an  organization  which  will  arrest  the  intestine  strife  of 
Christian  brethren,  and  unite  all  their  energies  in  effective  efforts 
to  extend  the  triumphs  of  the  cross  to  every  nation  upon  earth  ; 
an  organization,  which,  whilst  it  will  restore  the  church  to  the 
substantial  unity  of  the  apostolic  age ,  will  also  preserve  that 
unity  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  her  predicted  triumphs 
over  the  heathen  world. 

The  writer  feels  it  alike  due  to  himself,  to  his  subject,  and  to 
those  of  whom  he  asks  a  hearing,  to  state  that  the  sentiments  of 
the  following  appeal  were  not  hastily  adopted,  but  are  the  de¬ 
liberate  result  of  a  conscientious  study  of  the  subject,  first  urg¬ 
ed  on  him  by  providential  circumstances  about  twenty  years 
ago,  and  frequently  since  pursued  by  extensive  investigations 
into  the  organization  and  experience  of  the  church  in  the  differ¬ 
ent  ages  of  her  history.  In  presenting  these  results,  he  sought 
the  utmost  brevity  ;  and  yet,  as  the  popular  reader  was  also 
contemplated,  some  observations  and  statements  were  necessa¬ 
rily  introduced,  which  would  be  superfluous,  were  he  writing 
for  the  learned  alone. 


PREFACE. 


He  now  commends  these  pages  to  the  candid  and  indulgent 
examination  of  “  those  that  love  the  Lord,”  of  every  name. 
He  requests  them  to  test  the  sentiments  advanced,  not  by  their 
ecclesiastical  standards,  which  are  the  work  of  uninspired  though 
good  men,  but  by  the  law  and  the  testimony,  by  the  inspired 
word  of  God.  Let  them  solemnly  inquire,  whether  the  Pro¬ 
testant  churches,  organized  and  operating  on  the  plan  here  pro¬ 
posed,  would  not  approximate  much  nearer  to  the  apostolic 
church  than  they  now  do,  whether  they  would  not  act  much 
more  efficiently  and  harmoniously  in  advancing  the  triumphs  of 
the  cross  in  the  heathen  and  papal  world,  and  whether  we  might 
not  even  hope  again  to  see  the  days,  when  surrounding  observ¬ 
ers  will  exclaim,  u  See  how  these  Christians  love  one  another.” 

If  much  is  to  be  effected  in  this  great  enterprise,  it  must  be 
through  the  cooperation  and  influence  of  religious  editors  and 
other  prominent  individuals  in  every  denomination  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  church,  by  the  public  expression  of  their  opinions,  and  by 
the  discussion  of  the  subject  in  ecclesiastical  judicatories,  in  the¬ 
ological  institutions,  and  by  individual  congregations.  The  wri¬ 
ter  theiefore  lequests  editors  of  religious  periodicals  and  papers 
favorable  to  the  object,  whose  dimensions  admit  of  it,  to  transfer 
to  their  columns,  unaltered,  the  entire  plan  itself,  in  one  or  sev¬ 
eral  articles,  including  also  the  Apostolic ,  Protestant  Confes¬ 
sion,  and  the  mode  of  operation.  He  also  particularly  com¬ 
mends  this  Appeal  to  the  “  American  Society  for  the  promo¬ 
tion  of  Christian  Union,”  and  all  similar  Associations  that  may 
be  formed  in  our  land.  And  most  of  all  would  he  commend  it 
to  the  blessing  and  disposal  of  that  divine  Saviour,  from  a  desire 
to  advance  whose  glory,  he  trusts  these  pages  proceeded. 

S.  S.  SCHMUCKER. 

Theo’l.  be  in.  Grettyshurn- 
March  2(5,  1838. 


APPEAL,  ETC. 


CHAPTER  I. 


ITatEQ  ayis,  rriqrjaov  amovg  ev  tm  ovofxaxi  crop,  ovg  dsdcoxug  /not,  IVa 
ojtnv  tv,  xa&bjg  fjfttlg. — Jesus. 

Jug  Kvqiog ,  [tla  niang,  IV  flam urfxa. — Paul. 


When  the  sincere  and  unsophisticated  Christian  contemplates 
the  image  of  the  church  as  delineated  both  in  its  theory  and 
practice  by  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  he  is  charmed  by  the 
delightful  spirit  of  unity  and  brotherly  love  by  which  it  is  char¬ 
acterized.  When  he  hears  the  beloved  disciple  declare  “  God 
is  love,  and  they  that  dwell  in  love  dwell  in  God  and  again, 
“  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another,  for  love  is  of  God,  and 
every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,  and  knoweth  God.  He 
that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God  ;  for  God  is  love  and 
again,  “  Beloved,  if  God  so  loved  us,  we  ought  also  to  love  one 
another — If  any  man  say  I  love  God,  and  hateth  his  brother, 
he  is  a  liar  ;  for  he  that  loveth  not  his  brother  whom  he  hath 
seen,  how  can  he  love  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen  ?  And  this 
commandment  have  we  from  him,  that  he  who  loveth  God,  love 
his  brother  also.” — When  the  Christian  listens  to  such  declara¬ 
tions  as  these,  and  numerous  others  of  similar  import ;  when 
forgetting  things  as  they  exist  around  him,  he  brings  his  whole 
soul  under  the  influence  of  this  love  to  God  and  the  brethren  ; 
he  perceives  the  moral  beauty  of  these  sentiments,  and  finds 
his  heart  vibrate  in  delightful  unison  with  them.  But  when 
he  awakes  from  this  fascinating  dream  and  beholds  the  body 
of  Christ  rent  into  different  divisions,  separately  organized,  pro¬ 
fessing  different  creeds,  denouncing  each  other  as  in  error,  and 
often  times,  hating  and  being  hated  ;  his  spirit  is  grieved  within 
him,  and  he  asks  how  can  these  things  be  among  brethren  ?  In 
the  sacred  record  he  looks  in  vain  for  the  sectarian  parties  which 


4 


Dr.  Schmucker’’ s  Appeal. 


now  constitute  all  that  is  seen  of  the  church  of  the  Redeemer ; 
he  finds  nothing  there  of  Lutherans,  of  Presbyterians,  of  Metho¬ 
dists,  of  Episcopalians,  of  Baptists.  But  he  sees  that  when  the 
formation  of  such  parties  was  attempted  at  Corinth,  Paul 
deemed  it  necessary  to  write  them  a  long  letter,  and  besought 
them  by  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  have  no  divis¬ 
ions  among  them.  The  Christian  is  therefore  constrained  to 
mourn  over  the  desolations  of  Zion  and  to  meet  the  solemn  in¬ 
quiry,  cannot  a  balm  be  found  for  the  ulcerous  divisions  which 
deface  the  body  of  Christ  ? 

Many  such  hearts  there  happily  are  at  the  present  day, 
which  are  relenting  from  the  rigor  of  party  organization  and 
sectarian  asperity.  The  love  of  Christ,  that  sacred  flame 
which  warms  them,  and  bids  them  strive  together  for  the  con¬ 
version  of  a  world,  also  melts  down  the  walls  of  partition,  which 
might  well  enough  keep  Jews  asunder  from  Gentiles,  but  was 
never  permitted  to  sever  one  Jew  from  another,  and  much  less 
ought  now  to  separate  a  Christian  from  his  brother.  Many  are 
pondering  these  things  in  their  hearts,  and  asking  ought  breth¬ 
ren  to  be  thus  estranged  J  ought  Ephraim  thus  to  envy  Judah, 
and  Judah  to  vex  Ephraim  ?  Their  number  too  is  multiplying. 
Brotherly  love  and  Christian  liberality  are  on  the  whole  progres¬ 
sive,  and  tender  increasing  facilities, — whilst  they  urge  the  im¬ 
perious  obligation  of  this  inquiry  upon  every  enlightened  and 
sanctified  intellect.  Happily  many  of  the  ablest  heads  and  noblest 
hearts  in  Christendom  feel  called  to  review  the  ground ,  which 
the  Protestant  churches  have  been  led  to  assume  partly  by  op¬ 
tion,  partly  by  inconsideration ,  and  partly  by  the  coercion  of 
circumstances.  The  successful  prosecution  of  this  inquiry  de¬ 
mands  the  casting  off  of  the  prejudices  of  education  and  long 
established  habits,  a  recurrence  to  the  elementary  principles  of 
Christianity,  of  Christian  doctrine,  of  Christian  government,  of 
Christian  duty :  and  the  men,  be  they  ministers  or  be  they  lay¬ 
men,  who  would  regard  this  subject  with  indifference,  or  dis¬ 
miss  it  with  a  sneer,  may  well  inquire  whether  the  love  of 
Christ  dwells  in  them.  In  this  great  concern  not  self-interest, 
but  the  interest  of  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom,  should  be  the  mo¬ 
tive  of  our  actions  ;  not  victory,  but  truth  should  be  our  aim. 

In  this  incipient  stage  of  our  discussion,  we  would  premise  a 
few  principles,  or  draw  a  few  lines,  by  which  the  general  course 
of  our  investigation  may  be  recognized  and  the  results  in  some 
degree  be  anticipated  at  which  we  shall  arrive.  It  is  admitted, 


5 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


a)  As  one  house  cannot  contain  all  the  Christians  in  the  world, 
or  in  a  particular  country,  there  must  necessarily  be  different 
houses  of  worship. 

b)  As  all  Christians  in  a  particular  country  cannot  be  incor¬ 
porated  into  one  congregation  to  enjoy  the  ordinances  of  the 
gospel,  and  to  execute  the  duties  of  mutual  edification,  super¬ 
vision  and  discipline  ;  there  must  be  different  congregations ,  as 
there  were  in  the  days  of  the  apostles ;  whatever  may  be  the 
proper  principle  for  their  construction,  and  the  proper  bond  for 
their  union  with  each  other. 

c)  We  premise  as  a  point  conceded,  that  all  the  several  de¬ 
nominations  termed  orthodox,  which  are  but  clusters  of  such 
different  congregations,  are  parts  of  the  true  visible  church 
of  Christ ;  because,  in  the  conscientious  judgment  of  all  enlight¬ 
ened  Christians,  they  hold  the  essentials  of  the  gospel  scheme  of 
faith  and  practice  ;  and  secondly,  because  the  Saviour  himself 
has  acknowledged  them  as  such  by  the  seal  of  his  grace  and 
Spirit.  “  When  James,  Cephas  and  John  perceived  the  grace 
that  was  given  to  me,”  says  Paul,  to  the  Galatians,*  “  they  gave 
to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship.”  And  where 
is  the  bigot,  who  at  the  present  day,  would  claim  his  to  be  the 
only  true  church,  and  thus  repudiate  all  others  as  synagogues  of 
Satan  ? 


d)  As  these  denominations  hold  dissentient  views  on  some 
nonessential  points,  it  is  demonstrable  that  all  except  one  of 
them  must  entertain  some  error.  For  of  two  contrary  opinions 
only  one  can  be  true.  But  the  pretension  that  any  one  sect  is 
right  in  all  things,  and  all  others  in  error  so  far  as  they  diverge 
from  this  one,  is  highly  improbable  in  itself,  is  forbidden  by 
Christian  humility,  by  a  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  by  the 
amount  of  talent,  learning  and  piety  in  all  the  several  churches. 
Hence  some  error,  in  all  probability,  is  an  attribute  of  each 
sect. 

e)  Finally,  we  premise  that  ministers  and  laymen,  though 
pious,  are  fallible,  are  sanctified  but  in  part  and  liable  to  temp¬ 
tation  from  secular  motives  and  feelings,  even  in  things  per¬ 
taining  to  the  Redeemer’s  kingdom.  Hence  they  are  all  un¬ 
der  obligation  to  review  their  course  of  thought  and  action, 
and  ought  to  be  willing,  for  the  glory  of  their  God  and  Saviour, 
to  retrace  and  amend  whatever  may  be  found  amiss.  This  ob- 


*  Chap.  2:  9. 


2 


6 


Dr.  Schmuclcer’s  Appeal. 

ligation  devolves  alike  upon  the  writer  and  the  reader.  With  a 
deep  impression  of  its  importance,  its  claims  are  urged  on  your 
present  attention. 

Under  the  presumption  therefore  that  in  these  diversities  of 
opinion  we  are  all  more  or  less  in  error,  let  us  inquire  whether  it  is 
right  that  the  body  of  Christ  should  on  account  of  these  diver¬ 
sities  be  rent  into  so  many  different  parts,  under  circumstances 
creating  different  interests  in  each,  and  strongly  tending  to  alien¬ 
ate  their  affections,  and  dissolve  that  bond  of  fraternal  love,  by 
which  they  should  be  united,  or  whether  it  is  the  duty  of  Chris¬ 
tians  to  endeavor  to  heal  these  divisions,  and  promote  unity 
among  all  whom  they  profess  to  regard  as  disciples  of  Christ. 
The  will  of  our  divine  Master  will  become  apparent  to  us 
whilst  we  successively  consider, 

I.  The  Script  aval  injunctions. 

II.  The  example  of  the  apostles  and  primitive  Christians. 

III.  The  consequences  which  these  divisions  produce. 

In  the  wealthy  and  corrupt  city  of  Corinth,  a  Christian  church 
nad  been  planted  by  Paul,  watered  by  the  eloquent  Apollos, 
and  blessed  by  him,  from  whom  alone  can  come  any  genuine 
increase.  In  this  church,  it  seems,  there  appeared  symptoms 
of  the  spirit  of  sectarianism,  that  spirit,  “  which  now  worketh” 
not  only  u  among  the  children  of  disobedience/’  who  have  a 
name  to  live  whilst  they  are  dead  but  which  often  mars  the  en¬ 
joyment  and  tarnishes  the  graces  of  the  members  of  Christ’s  spirit¬ 
ual  body.  The  Corinthian  brethren  had  long  been  familiar  with 
the  several  sects  of  heathen  philosophers  and  religionists  and  by  a 
natural  transition  were  led  to  array  themselves  into  parties  accord¬ 
ing  to  some  religious  differences  which  arose  among  them.  Some 
said  “  I  am  of  Paul,”  probably  because  he  first  laid  the  foundation 
of  the  Corinthian  church  ;*  others  said  “  I  am  of  Apollos,”  per¬ 
haps  on  account  of  his  superior  eloquence  ;  and  others  said  u  I 
am  of  Cephas,”  either  because  like  Peter,  they  cherished  Jew¬ 
ish  predilections,  or  were  converted  by  him  elsewhere.  Here 
then  was  an  attempt  to  introduce  different  sects  or  religious  de¬ 
nominations  into  the  church  of  Christ,  ranged  under  different 
leaders  such  as  Paul,  Apollos,  Peter,  Luther,  Calvin,  Zuingli 
or  Wesley;  and  what  are  the  feelings  of  the  noble-minded 
Paul?  Does  he  approve  of  such  a  course?  Let  us  hear  his 
own  words,  my  brethren,  and  pray  that  the  spirit  of  our  lacerated 


*  Chap.  3: 10.  Acts  18: 11. 


7 


Dr.  Schmiickei^s  Appeal. 

Master  may  enable  us  to  understand  them.  “  I  beseech  you, 
brethren,  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,”  (by  the  hope  you  cherish 
through  him,  by  his  suffering,  by  his  blood),  I  beseech  you, 
“  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  schisms 
(apo^ai a)  or  sects  among  you  ;  but  that  ye  be  joined  together 
in  the  same  mind  and  in  the  same  judgment.  For  it  hath  been 
declared  to  me  concerning  you,  my  brethren,  by  them  which 
are  of  the  house  of  Chloe,  that  there  are  contentions  (tpideg) 
among  you  :  namely  that  every  one  of  you  saith,”  either  “  I  am  of 
Paul”  (he  is  my  leader),  “  or  I  am  of  Apollos,  or  I  am  of  Peter, 
or  I  am  of  Christ.  Is  Christ,”  (i.  e.  the  body  of  Christ)  “  di¬ 
vided  ?  Was  Paul”  (or  either  of  those  whose  names  ye  assume 
and  whom  ye  wish  to  place  at  the  side  of  Christ  as  leaders  or 
heads  of  the  church)  “  crucified  for  you  ?  Or  were  ye  baptized 
into  the  name  of  Paul  (or  of  Apollos,  or  of  Peter,  so  that  ye 
were  received  into  their  church,  and  not  into  the  church  of 
Christ  ?)  “  I  thank  God,”  (since  ye  thus  abuse  the  privi¬ 

lege  of  having  been  baptized)  “  that  I  baptized  none  of  you  except 
Crispus”  (the  ruler  of  the  synagogue)  “  and  Gaius”  (whose  hos¬ 
pitality  I  enjoyed  whilst  at  Corinth  ;)  so  that  ye  cannot  with 
any  semblance  of  truth  allege,  that  I  baptized  you  in  my  own 
name  and  thus  formed  a  peculiar  sect  of  Christians. 

Such  is  the  powerful  and  decided  testimony  given  by  the  in¬ 
spired  apostle  Paul,  against  the  spirit  of  sectarianism.  Ought 
not  every  man  who  believes  himself  a  Christian,  to  feel  the  force 
of  this  rebuke  and  ask,  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  to 
heal  thy  wounded  body  ?  The  apostle  does  not  even  introduce 
into  his  argument  the  points  of  diversity  among  them,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  which  they  were  arraying  themselves  into  different 
parties.  The  simple  facts  that  they  were  baptized  into  Christ, 
and  into  Christ  alone,  i.  e.  were  members  of  the  church  in  good 
standing,  and  that  Christ  must  not  be  divided,  are  the  only  argu¬ 
ments  which  he  deems  requisite  to  prove  the  impropriety  of  their 
divisions  and  of  their  assumption  of  different  names.  He  would 
have  them  Christians  and  nothing  but  Christians ;  not  Pauline 
Christians,  nor  Apolline,  nor  Cephine,  nor  Lutheran,  nor  Cal  vinis- 
tic,  nor  Wesleyan  Christians,  not  because  he  had  any  antipathy  to 
Apollos  or  Peter;  but  because  any  such  divisions  based  on  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinions  or  personal  attachments  naturally  tended  to 
rend  asunder  the  body  of  Christ.  Let  it  be  distinctly  remem¬ 
bered  then,  that  the  argument  of  Paul  for  the  unity  of  the  Re¬ 
deemer’s  visible  church  is  twofold ;  first,  he  maintains  that  this 


/ 


8  Dr .  Schmucker's  Appeal. 

unity  and  the  impropriety  of  divisions  on  party-grounds  are  evi¬ 
dently  presupposed  by  the  fact,  that  all  its  members  are  baptized 
into  the  name  of  Christ  alone  ;  and  secondly  from  the  fact  that  all 
'■  divisions  based  on  difference,  are  equivalent  to  dividing  the  one 
body  of  Christ.  Nor  does  he  here  affix  any  limitations  to  these 
principles,  and  no  uninspired  authority  is  competent  to  prescribe 
any  others  than  such  as  may  indubitably  flow  from  other  inspired 
declarations  or  from  the  obvious  nature  of  Christianity  itself. 
The  apostle  Paul  therefore  distinctly  forbids  the  cutting  up  of 
those  whom  he  would  acknowledge  as  Christians  at  all,  into  dif¬ 
ferent  parties  or  sects.  And  this  he  does  even  by  anticipation, 
for  in  all  probability,  these  parties  had  not  yet  fully  separated 
from  one  another,  nor  renounced  ecclesiastical  inter-communion. 
Yet  there  were  in  the  apostolic  age,  as  well  as  at  present,  men 
who  claimed  to  be  Christians,  but  whom  this  great  apostle 
was  unwilling  to  acknowledge  as  such,  and  commanded  “  after 
the  first  and  second  admonition,  to  reject.”* 

In  the  passage,  “A  man  that  is  a  heretic  (  algsiwov  avftgw- 
7iov )  after  the  first  and  second  admonition  reject,”  the  apostle 
himself  limits  the  application  of  the  principles  above  urged  on 
the  Corinthians,  by  showing  that  although  he  forbade  the  form¬ 
ation  of  sects  or  divisions  among  Christians  on  the  ground  of 
difference,  yet  there  were  occasionally  persons  in  the  church, 
who  if  incorrigible,  deserved  to  be  cast  out  of  it  altogether. 
The  crime  which  in  the  judgment  of  Paul  merited  this  punish¬ 
ment,  he  designates  by  the  term  heretical  {aigeTiyiovf  which 
in  the  English  language  distinctly  refers  to  one  who  denies  a 
fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity.  The  original  word  also 
sometimes  seems  to  have  this  sense  ;  but  more  frequently  it 
signifies  a  schismatic,  one  who  makes  a  division,  or  forms  a  sect. 
In  the  former  acceptation,  the  passage  inculcates  the  salutary 
duty,  acknowledged  and  practised  by  all  the  orthodox  churches 
of  the  land,  of  excluding  from  their  communion  and  from  mem¬ 
bership,  those  who  deny  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel, 
that  is  a  doctrine  unitedly  believed  by  all  the  orthodox  churches, 
and  regarded  as  essential  by  them.  Some  denominations  would 
exercise  still  greater  rigor,  and  exclude  from  their  communion 
the  believers  of  doctrines  held  by  such  sister  churches,  as  they 
professedly  and  sincerely  regard  as  churches  of  Christ.  But 
Paul  wholly  repudiates  those  divisions  grounded  on  diversity  of 


*  Titus  3:  10. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


9 


sentiment,  which  would  render  it  possible  for  a  brother  Chris¬ 
tian,  when  ejected  from  one  portion  of  the  Saviour’s  church  to 
find  admission  to  another.  At  all  events,  the  church  in  his  day 
was  not  thus  divided,  and  those  whose  excommunication  he  en¬ 
joined,  must  in  his  judgment  have  forfeited  all  claim  to  the 
Christian  profession.  The  apostles’s  rule,  therefore,  as  limited 
by  himself,  would  be  that  we  ought  not  to  separate  from  our 
brethren,  for  any  error  which  we  believe  them  to  entertain,  and 
which  does  not  in  our  most  conscientious  judgment  deprive 
them  of  all  claim  to  the  character  of  Christians. 

The  primitive  import  of  the  Greek  word  aigsoig  (heresy)  is  - 
selection ,  choice.  Thus  it  is  used  by  many  ancient  Greek  wri¬ 
ters.  The  following  passage  of  Aeschines  Socrat.  (Dial.  II.  3,) 
amounts,  if  not  to  a  definition,  yet  to  the  most  appropriate  ex¬ 
emplification  of  this  sense  of  the  term  :  ei  dt  xlg  aoc  didotrj  ai~ 
geoiv  xovxoiv ,  noxegov  uv  (jqvXoio  ,  In  this  sense  we  also  meet 
it  in  the  Septuagint ;  (Lev.  27  :  18  and  21,)  as  equivalent  to 
free  will,  voluntarily.  It  is  also  employed  to  designate  a  pe¬ 
culiar  kind  of  discipline  or  mode  of  living ,  that  has  been  vol¬ 
untarily  assumed.  But  its  more  common  signification*  is  schism , 
division ,  sect.  Thus  Dionys.  Halic.  (Ep.  I.  ad  Ammaeum. 
c.  7.)  says  of  Aristotle :  He  was  not  the  leader  or  head  of  a 
school,  nor  did  he  form  a  sect  of  his  own  (ovxs  oyolrig  riyov^u- 
vog,  ovx ’  idiav  mnoujucog  aigeoiv.)  It  is  used  by  classic  writers 
to  designate  the  several  philosophic  sects,  the  Stoics,  the  Epi¬ 
cureans,  the  Peripatetics,  etc.  It  occurs  nine  times  in  the  New 
Testament  and  in  the  majority  of  cases  it  is  translated  sect  in 
the  common  version.  In  the  other  cases  it  might  with  equal 
propriety  be  rendered  in  the  same  way,j*  as  indeed  it  is  by 
many  distinguished  translators.  In  its  primitive  and  most  cur¬ 
rent  signification,  therefore,  the  word  (aigeoig)  conveys  no  re¬ 
proach.  It  is  used  to  designate  the  sect  of  Pharisees, %  the  sect 

*  Rosenmiiller  defines  aigeaig  thus  :  ‘'Aigsaewg  vox,  per  se  media 
est.  Ubi  in  rnalam  partem  sumitur  significat  idem  quod  o^/cqua ;  sed 
restringitur  ad  ea  dissidea  quae  fiunt  ex  opinionum  diversitate. 

f  2  Pet.  2:1.  1  Cor.  11:  9. 

|  Acts  15:5:  But  there  rose  up  certain  of  the  sect  (aigecng)  of  the 
Pharisees,  who  believed  saying,  that  it  was  needful  to  circumcise 
them,  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  law  of  Moses.  Acts  25:  6  : 
The  Jews  knew  me  from  the  beginning  if  they  would  testify,  that  af¬ 
ter  the  most  straitest  sect  {a'igeaig)  of  our  religion,  I  lived  a  Pharisee. 


10 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

of  Sadducees,* * * §  and  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes  or  Christians.!  In 
all  the  passages  where  it  is  rendered  sect,  in  the  common  ver¬ 
sion,  it  signifies  a  party  of  persons  who  have  separated  them¬ 
selves  from  others  professedly  pursuing  the  same  end,  over 
whom  they  profess  to  have  some  advantages.  Here  we  have 
sects  substantially  corresponding  to  those  of  our  days,  sects  based 
✓  not  on  geographical  lines,  but  on  doctrinal  diversities  like  our 
own,  and  yet  what  does  Paul  say  concerning  such  sects  in  the 
church  of  Christ  ?  Using  the  very  same  word  by  which  he 
designated  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  (in  an  adjective  form,)  he 
declares:  Him  that  is  a  sectarian  man  (aigeiwov  dvQQwnov} 
an  originator  or  supporter  of  sects  in  the  Christian  church,  after 
the  first  and  second  admonition,  reject ,  exclude  from  your  com¬ 
munion  and  intercourse,  avoid.  Here  we  have  the  apostle  again 
distinctly  condemning  the  formation  of  sects  in  the  Christian 
church,  using  the  very  identical  term  by  which  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees  are  designated  in  the  New  Testament  and  the 
several  sects  of  their  philosophers  by  classic  Greeks. 

Again,  in  the  third  chapter  of  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corin¬ 
thians,!  Paul  denounces  such  divisions  in  the  Christian  church 
as  “carnal.”  “For,  (says  he)  whereas  there  is  among  you 
envying  and  strife  and  divisions ,  are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk 
as  men  ?  For  while  one  saith  I  am  of  Paul,  and  another  I  am 
of  Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal  V9  How  then  can  divisions  es¬ 
sentially  similar,  among  modern  Christians,  be  pleasing  in  the 
sight  of  God  ?  In  his  letter  to  the  Galatians, $  this  same  apos¬ 
tle  classes  these  heresies  or  divisions  among  “  the  works  of  the 
fleshy  He  beseeches  the  Romans, ||  to  “  mark,  (gxot ie7v)  at¬ 
tentively  to  observe,  or  watch  those,  “  who  cause  divisions  and 
offences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  (or  rather  the  instruction  or 
advice)  which  ye  have  learned  :  and  avoid  them.”  But  it 
would  be  an  endless  work  to  present  all  the  passages,  in  which 
the  sacred  volume  inculcates  the  unity  of  the  church,  and  de¬ 
precates  its  disruption  into  sects.  Let  one  other  passage  termi¬ 
nate  this  branch  of  our  argument.  To  the  same  Corinthians,H 

*  Acts  5:  17 :  Then  the  high  priest  rose  up  and  all  they  that  were 

with  him,  which  is  the  sect  (cugscng)  of  the  Sadducees. 

f  Acts  24: 5, 14.  28:  22.  J  v.  3:  4. 

§  Gal.  5 :  20 :  The  works  of  the  flesh  are — wrath,  strife,  heresy,  or 
sects,  divisions. 

||  16 :  17. 


H  12:12. 


11 


Dr.  Schmuckei'’ s  Appeal. 

he  says  :  u  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members, 
and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one 
body  ;  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptiz¬ 
ed  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether 
we  be  bond  or  free ;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one 
Spirit.  For  the  body  is  not  one  member  but  many. — Now 
they  are  many  members,  yet  but  one  body — That  there  should 
he  no  schism  in  the  body  ;  but  that  the  members  should  have 
the  same  care  one  for  another.”*  It  would  seem  then  to  be 
irresistibly  evident,  that  the  unity  of  the  church  ought  to  be  sa¬ 
credly  preserved  by  all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus ;  and  without 
stopping,  at  this  stage  of  our  investigation,  to  ascertain  all  the 
precise  features  of  this  unity,  which  will  hereafter  appear;  it  is 
evident  that  the  union  inculcated  by  the  apostle,  is  such,  as  is 
inconsistent  with  the  divisions  which  he  reprobates,  and  such 
divisions  substantially  are  those  of  the  present  day,  which  are 
all  based  on  some  difference  of  doctrine,  forms  of  government, 
or  mode  of  worship  among  acknowledged  Christians. 

But  the  obligation  of  Christians  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
church ,  is  evident  from  the  example  of  the  apostles ,  of  the 
apostolic  and  subsequent  age. 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  affirm,  that  no  one  of  the  apostles, 
or  their  fellow  laborers  established  any  sects  in  the  Christian 
church.  The  bare  supposition  of  the  contrary  is  absurd  and 
revolting  to  every  mind  acquainted  with  the  inspired  record. 
Yet  what  ample  ground  was  there  for  such  a  course,  if  it  had 
been  regarded  lawful  ?  There  was  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  apostles,  and  difference  among  the  first  Christians  :  but 
neither  was  regarded  as  a  cause  for  schism  or  division  in  the 
church.  Paul  differed  from  Peter  and  disapproved  of  his  con¬ 
duct  so  much  that  (he  says)  “  at  Antioch  I  withstood  him  to 
the  face,  for  he  was  to  be  blamed  :”f  yet  neither  of  them 
dreamed  of  forming  a  sect  for  the  defence  and  propagation  of 
his  distinctive  views.  Paul  and  Barnabas  differed  about  their 
arrangements  for  missionary  operations,  and  when  the  conten¬ 
tion  grew  sharp,  each  took  as  fellow  laborers  those  whom  he 
preferred,  and  thus  prosecuted  the  work  ;  but  it  never  entered 
into  their  minds  to  form  different  sects  in  the  church.  In  the 
apostolic  age  there  existed  differences  of  opinion  and  practice 
between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts,  far  greater  than  those 

*  See  also  Eph.  4  :  3—6.  f  Gal.  2: 11—14. 


12 


Dr.  Schmuclcer’s  Appeal. 

which  divide  some  of  the  religious  denominations  of  our  land, 
(the  former  enjoining  circumcision*  and  other  ceremonial  ob¬ 
servances)  ;j*  yet  they  did  not  divide  the  church  into  diffeient 
sects  under  the  guidance  of  the  apostles.  On  the  contrary 
the  apostle  enjoined  mutual  forbearance.  “  One  man  (says 
Paul)  esteemeth  one  day  above  another:  another  esteemeth 
every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own 
mind.  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the  Lord ; 
and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth  not  re¬ 
gard  it — But  why  dost  thou  judge  (condemn)  thy  brother  ?  or 
why  dost  thou  set  at  nought  (despise)  thy  brother?  for  vve 
shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.^  Nor  did 
any  schism  actually  arise  from  these  differences  till  the  apostles 
had  gone  to  their  rest,  when  in  direct  opposition  to  this  advice, 
the  Nazaraeans,  in  the  reign  of  Adrian,  separated  from  the  body 
of  Christians,  who  however  strongly  disapproved  of  their  con¬ 
duct.  It  is  certain  too  that  during  several  hundred  years,  there 
continued  to  be  persons  in  the  church ,  who  exhibited  a  linger¬ 
ing  attachment  to  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  observances,  yet  they 
were  not  excluded  nor  advised  to  form  themselves  into  a  sepa¬ 
rate  sect.  The  observance  of  the  Lord’s  day  or  Christian  Sab¬ 
bath  was  universal  but  some  Christians  during  several  cen- 


#  Acts  15  :  5. 

f  Gal.  4:10:  Ye  observe  days  and  months  and  times  and  years. 
I  am  afraid,  etc. 

|  Romans  14  :  5 — 10. 

§  On  the  subject  of  the  primitive  sanctification  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath  it  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  ad¬ 
duce  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born  three  or  four 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostle  John,  in  his  Apology  for  the  Chris¬ 
tians,  presented  to  Antoninus  Pius,  A.  D.  150.  He  says  :  “  On  the  day 
which  is  called  Sunday,  all  whether  dwelling  in  the  towns,  or  in  the 
villages,  hold  meetings,  and  the  memoirs  ^Anofivi]yovsvyaTa)  of  the 
apostles  and  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  as  much  as  the 
time  will  permit ;  then  the  reader  closing,  the  person  presiding,  in  a 
speech  exhorts  and  excites  to  an  imitation  of  those  excellent  exam¬ 
ples  ;  then  we  all  rise  and  pour  forth  united  prayers,  and  when  we 
close  our  prayers,  as  was  before  said,  bread  is  brought  forward,  and 
wine  and  water;  and  the  presiding  officer  utters  prayers  and  thanks¬ 
givings  according  to  his  ability  (ocr^  dvvayig  avicp)  and  the  people  re¬ 
spond  by  saying  Amen.  A  distribution  and  participation  of  the  things 
blessed,  takes  place  to  each  one  present,  and  to  those  absent  it  is  sent 


13 


Dr.  SchmucJcer’s  Appeal. 

turies  continued  also  to  observe  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  a  sacred 
day.  The  time  for  the  observance  of  Easter  was  another  point 
of  difference  and  even  of  warm  controversy  ;  yet  excepting  some 
intolerant  individuals  neither  party  seriously  thought  of  divid¬ 
ing  the  church  or  disowning  their  brethren  on  this  ground.* * 
Had  these  differences  existed  in  our  time,  who  can  doubt  not 
only  that  separate  sects  would  have  grown  out  of  them  but  that 
their  formation  would  be  approved  by  Christians  generally  ? 
Nay  is  not  this  question  decided  by  facts  ?  Is  there  not  a  sect 
of  some  extent  in  our  land,  the  Seventh  Day  Baptists,  who  dif- 

by  the  deacons.  Those  who  are  prosperous  and  willing,  give  what 
they  choose,  each  according  to  his  own  pleasure  ;  and  what  is  collect¬ 
ed  is  deposited  with  the  presiding  officer,  and  he  carefully  relieves 
the  orphans  and  widows,  and  those  who  from  sickness  or  other  causes 
are  needy,  and  also  those  that  are  in  prison,  and  the  strangers  that  are 
residing  with  us,  and  in  short  all  that  have  need  of  help.  We  all  com¬ 
monly  hold  our  assemblies  on  Sunday,  because  it  is  the  first  day  on 
which  God  changed  the  darkness  and  matter  and  framed  the  world ;  and 
Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  on  the  same  day,  arose  from  the  dead.”  Mur¬ 
dock’s  Mos.  I.  p.  164 — 5. 

*  The  testimony  of  Eusebius  on  this  point  is  very  satisfactory. 
He  says  (Book  V.  chap.  23,)  “there  was  a  considerable  discussion  rais¬ 
ed  about  this  time  in  consequence  of  a  difference  of  opinion  respect¬ 
ing  the  observance  of  the  festival  (of  the  Saviour’s)  passover.” _ After 

narrating  the  history  of  this  discussion  and  the  efforts  of  Victor,  bish¬ 
op  of  Rome,  to  break  communion  with  those  who  differed  from  him, 
Eusebius  quotes  an  extract  from  a  letter  written  by  Irenaeus  to  Victor 
to  persuade  him  to  peace.  “And  though  (says  Irenaeus  to  Victor) 
they  (the  earlier  bishops)  themselves  did  not  keep  it,  they  were  not 
the  less  at  peace  with  those  from  churches  where  it  was  kept,  when¬ 
ever  they  came  to  them. — JVeither  at  any  time  did  they  cast  off  any, 
merely  for  the  sake  of  form.  But  those  very  presbyters  before  thee, 
who  did  not  observe  it,  sent  the  eucharist  to  those  of  churches  who 
did.  And  when  the  blessed  Polycarp  went  to  Rome,  in  the  time  of 
Anicetus,  and  they  had  a  little  difference  among  themselves,  about 
other  matters  also,  they  were  immediately  reconciled,  not  disputing 
much  with  one  another  on  this  head.  For  Anicetus  could  not  per¬ 
suade  Polycarp  not  to  observe  it;  because  he  had  always  observed  it 
with  John,  the  disciple  of  our  Lord,  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  with 
whom  he  associated. — Which  things  being  so,  they  communed  together, 
and  in  the  church  Anicetus  yielded  to  Polycarp  :  they  separated  from 
each  other  in  peace,  all  the  church  being  at  peace,  both  those  that  ob¬ 
serve  and  those  that  did  not  observe,  maintaining  the  peace.”  Euseb, 
Book  V.  chap.  24. 


3 


14 


Dr .  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

fer  from  other  baptists  only  in  regard  to  the  time  of  observing 
the  Christian  Sabbath  ;  they  believing  that  the  seventh  day  con¬ 
tinues  to  be  the  proper  one  under  the  New  Testament  dispensa¬ 
tion,  as  it  was  under  the  Old  ?  But  in  the  apostolic  churches 
it  was  different.  There  all  who  were  regarded  as  Christians 
and  lived  in  the  same  place,  also  belonged  to  the  same  church, 
and  worshipped  together,  agreeing  to  differ  in  peace  on  minor 
points,  and  remembering  that  no  Christian  has  a  right  to  judge, 
that  is  to  condemn  his  brother  Christian  on  account  of  his  con¬ 
scientious  difference  of  opinion.  Each  one  was  to  be  fully  per¬ 
suaded  in  his  own  mind,  and  prepare  to  stand  with  his  brother 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  Neither  was  to  sit  in  judg¬ 
ment  on  the  other,  Christ  was  to  judge  both  ;  and  until  his  final 
award  their  differences  were  to  be  borne  in  love. 

Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  then,  that  in  the  apostolic  age,  when 
the  church  was  governed  by  inspired  servants  of  God,  and  for 
some  time  after,  there  was  not  in  the  whole  Christian  world  any 
such  thing  as  different  sects  of  acknowledged  Christians.  All 
who  professed  to  be  Christians,  and  resided  in  the  same  place, 
belonged  to  the  same  church.  And  if,  as  was  probably  the 
case  in  large  cities,  they  met  at  different  houses  for  worship, 
they  nevertheless  all  regarded  each  other  as  members  of  the 
same  church  or  congregation  ;  they  all  frequently  communed 
together,  and  the  reason  of  different  places  for  meeting,  was 
not  diversity  of  opinions  among  them,  but  because  private 
houses  in  which  they  assembled,  having  had  no  churches  till  the 
third  century,*  could  not  contain  them  all.  Heretics  there 
were,  who  denied  some  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
These  were  excluded  from  the  church  in  which  they  had 
resided,  and  were  then  disowned  by  all  other  Christian  church¬ 
es.  But  different  sects  of  Christians,  acknowledging  each  other 
as  Christians,  yet  separated  on  the  ground  of  diversity  of  opin¬ 
ions,  such  as  the  different  denominations  of  Protestants  are,  had 
no  existence,  and  were  utterly  unknown  in  the  apostolic  age  ; 
nor  was  the  great  body  of  the  church  ever  thus  cut  up,  in  her 
purest  day  during  the  earlier  centuries.  We  read  of  the  church 
at  Corinth,  the  church  at  Ephesus,  the  church  in  Rome,  the 
church  in  Smyrna,  the  church  in  Thyatira,  the  church  in  Phil- 

*  The  houses  for  Christian  worship  were  erected  during  the  reign 
of  Alexander  Severus  between  A.  D.  222 — 235:  yet  Vater  supposes 
them  to  have  existed  at  the  close  of  the  2d  century. 


15 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

adelphia,  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  the  church  at  Philippi,  and 
in  many  other  places  ;  but  never  of  the  Pauline  church  in  Cor¬ 
inth,  nor  of  the  church  that  follows  Apollos,  nor  of  the  church 
of  Gentile  converts,  nor  of  the  church  of  Jewish  converts,  nor  of 
the  church  that  retains  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  nor 
ol  the  church  that  does  not.  In  short  Christians  in  those  days 
were  called  Christians  and  nothing  but  Christians ;  and  one 
Christian  church  was  distinguished  from  another  only  by  the 
name  of  the  place  in  which  it  was  located.  This  ought  certain¬ 
ly  to  be  a  solemn  fact  to  those,  who  have  taken  it  for  granted, 
that  sectarian  divisions  of  the  church  are  right,  that  they  were 
doing  God  service  by  their  utmost  efforts  to  perpetuate  them, 
by  inscribing  on  the  tender  and  infant  mind  the  lineaments  of 
their  denominational  peculiarity.  One  thing  does  appear  unde¬ 
niable.  If  the  sectarian  form  of  Christianity  be  its  best  mode 
of  development,  the  blessed  Saviour  himself — with  reverence 
be  it  spoken  ! — the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  failed  to  give  it 
their  injunction ;  on  the  contrary,  enjoined  and  practised  direct¬ 
ly  the  reverse  ! !  The  writer  does  not  from  these  facts  infer 
the  obligation  of  Christians  immediately  to  renounce  their  pres¬ 
ent  organizations  and  all  merge  into  one  church.  Difficulties 
now  exist  arising  from  honest  diversity  of  views  on  church  gov¬ 
ernment,  which  did  not  exist  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  which  render 
it  impossible  for  persons  thus  differing  to  unite  geographically  ; 
but  the  essence  of  Christian  union  may  exist,  and  ought  to  be 
promoted  immediately,  as  will  be  seen  in  a  subsequent  stage  of 
this  discussion.  As  to  a  union  of  all  the  churches  of  the  land 
in  one  compact  ecclesiastical  system  of  judicature,  such  a  one 
did  not  exist  in  the  apostolic  age,  is  undesirable,  and  dangerous. 

But  the  importance  of  unity  in  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the 
duty  of  promoting  it  is  further  demonstrated  by  the  baneful  effects  . 
of  sectarian  divisions. 

Sectarian  divisions,  divisions  on  the  ground  of  difference ,  tend 
to  destroy  that  community  of  interest ,  and  sympathy  of  feeling 
which  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  so  urgently  inculcate.  How 
fervently  does  our  blessed  Lord  supplicate  for  the  unity  of  all 
his  followers  !  “  Neither  pray  I  for  these  (the  apostles)  alone, 

but  for  them  also  who  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word  ; 
that  they  may  all  be  one,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in 
thee”* — that  there  may  be  among  them  that  unity  of  counsel, 


*  John  17:  20,  21 


16 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

of  feeling,  of  purpose,  of  action  which  exists  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  What  can  be  more  reasonable  ?  If  all  his  dis¬ 
ciples,  all  who  “  believe  in  him  through  the  word,”  are  hereaf¬ 
ter  to  inhabit  the  same  heaven,  to  surround  the  same  throne  of 
God  and  the  Lamb  ;  would  not  the  principle  of  sectarian  di¬ 
visions  carry  discord  into  those  harmonious  ranks,  and  mar  their 
heavenly  hallelujahs  and  grate  upon  the  ears  of  angels  and  the 
Lamb  !  No!  sectarianism  is  an  acknowledged  and  —  alas  that 
it  should  be  so — a  cherished  trait  of  the  church  on  earth,  which 
will  never,  never  be  admitted  into  heaven.  And  who  can 
doubt  that  the  nearer  we  can  bring  the  church  on  earth  to  the 
character  of  the  church  in  heaven,  the  more  pleasing  will  she 
be  to  him  that  purchased  her  with  his  blood.  Accordingly 
Paul  informs  us  :  “  That  there  should  be  no  schism  in  the  body  ; 
but  that  the  members  should  have  the  same  care  one  for  an¬ 
other;*  and  if  one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with 
it,  or  if  one  member  be  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with 
it!”  But,  gracious  Lord  !  is  not  directly  the  reverse  of  this  but 
too  frequently  witnessed  ?  Does  not  the  great  mass  of  the  sev¬ 
eral  religious  denominations  of  our  land,  exhibit  any  thing  else 
than  “  the  same  care,”  for  the  other  members  of  Christ’s  body  ? 
If  one  denomination  suffers,  fails  of  success  or  meets  with  dis¬ 
grace  in  some  unworthy  members,  do  not  surrounding  denomi¬ 
nations  rather  at  least  tacitly  and  cheerfully  acquiesce  if  not  re¬ 
joice,  hoping  that  thus  more  room  will  be  made  and  facility 
offered  for  their  own  enlargement  ?  We  do  not  find  that  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  same  family  thus  cordially  acquiesce  or  triumph  in 
each  others’  misfortune  or  disgrace.  If  one  brother  is  visited 
by  any  calamity,  if  he  falls  a  victim  to  intemperance  and  bears 
about  in  his  bloated  face  the  ensign  of  his  disgrace,  do  we 
find  his  brothers  and  sisters  rejoice  in  it  ?  Do  they  not  rather 
sympathize,  feel  hurt  themselves,  and  mourn  over  his  downfall  ? 
Thus  ought  it  to  be  among  all  who  deserve  the  name  of  Christ. 
Thus  would  it  be,  if  the  community  of  interest  in  the  Saviour’s 
family  had  not  been  impaired  by  sectarian  divisions  which  place 
several  distinct  religious  families  on  the  same  ground,  with 
separate  pecuniary  interests,  with  conflicting  prejudices,  with  ri¬ 
val  sectarian  aims  !  In  the  apostolic  age  and  for  centuries  after 
it,  only  one  Christian  church  occupied  the  same  field,  and  thus 
J  three  fourths  of  the  causes  which  originate  contention  among 


*  1  Cor.  12:25 


Dr.  Schmuckers  Appeal. 


17 


modern  Christians  were  avoided.  These  separate  interests, 
will  always  create  contention,  rivalry  and  jealousies  among  fal¬ 
lible  men,  sanctified  hut  in  part,  as  long  as  they  are  not  re¬ 
moved  or  their  influence  in  some  way  counteracted.  And,  as 
they  did  not  belong  to  the  church  constituted  by  the.  Saviour 
and  his  apostles,  the  solemn  duty  devolves  on  all  Christians 
to  inquire,  how  can  this  evil  be  remedied  ? 

Again,  sectarian  divisions  of  the  church  impede  the  impar¬ 
tial  study  of  the  sacred  volume  by  ministers  and  laymen.  The 
doctrines  believed  by  what  are  termed  the  orthodox  churches, 
as  well  as  their  forms  of  government  and  worship,  may  be  di¬ 
vided  into  two  classes,  those  which  are  undisputed  and  held  by 
all  in  common,  and  those  which  are  disputed  by  some  of  them, 
and  which  distinguish  the  sects  from  each  other.  The  sectari¬ 
an  principle  builds  a  wall  of  defence  around  the  peculiar  opin¬ 
ions  of  each  sect.  It  enlists  all  Christians  in  defence  of  the  pe¬ 
culiarities  of  their  denomination,  and  creates  powerful  motives 
of  a  self-interested  and  unholy  character  in  vindication  of  these 
peculiarities,  rather  than  of  the  grand  truths  of  Christianity, 
which  are  essential  to  the  salvation  of  all ;  motives  which 
appeal  to  the  pride  of  some,  to  the  avarice  of  others,  and  to  the 
ambition  of  a  third  class.  Each  member  is  taught  by  the  very 
principles  of  his  sinful  nature  to  feel  identified  with  the  peculiar 
interests  of  his  sect.  His  vanity  is  flattered  by  the  supposed 
respectability  of  his  sect,  his  ambition  is  at  least  tempted  by  the 
prospect  of  extended  influence  or  distinction  in  the  ministry  or 
as  a  layman  in  the  ecclesiastical  councils  of  his  extensive  and  re¬ 
spectable  church,  and  his  avarice  is  concerned  in  diminishing  his 
own  expenses  by  the  increasing  numbers  of  his  fellow-members, 
or,  if  a  minister,  by  the  ample  support  which  he  may  obtain. 
We  would  not  insinuate  that  all  Christians  are  influenced  by 
these  unamiable  motives,  nor  that  any  true  disciple  ol  the  Sa¬ 
viour  is  mainly  actuated  by  them.  But  we  fear  that  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  professors  in  the  church,  are  more  influenced  by  these 
secular  considerations,  than  they  are  themselves  aware.  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  the  peculiarities  of  sect  acquire  a  factitious  impor¬ 
tance,  are  often  inculcated  with  as  much  assiduity  as  the  great 
and  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  Endless  and  useless  con¬ 
troversies  about  these  points  agitate  the  church,  and  disturb  her 
peace.  These  peculiarities  are  instilled  into  the  tender  minds 
of  children,  and  are  often  represented  as  involving  the  marrow 
of  salvation.  Prejudices  are  raised  in  their  behalf.  The  tenets 


18 


Dr.  Schmuckers  Appeal. 

of  other  denominations  are  often  kept  out  of  view,  or  stated  in  a 
manner  but  ill  calculated  for  an  impartial  investigation  of  God’s 
truth.  The  antipathies  of  the  social  circle  are  sometimes  ar¬ 
rayed  in  opposition,  and,  may  I  say,  sometimes  in  ridicule  of 
other  denominations  ;  and  even  the  gentler  sex,  sisters  of  her 
of  Bethany,  who,  sitting  at  the  Master’s  feet,  imbibed  the 
streams  of  his  love  ;  sisters  of  them,  who,  true  to  their  affection, 

“  Were  last  at  the  cross, 

And  earliest  at  the  grave,” 

have  hated  that  Saviour  in  the  person  of  his  followers,  because 
they  wore  not  the  badge  of  their  sect !  have  forgotten  that  their 
religion  is  love, — that  charity,  divine  charity  is  the  brightest  or¬ 
nament  of  their  nature  !  Under  such  circumstances,  doubts  of 
the  sectarian  peculiarities  inculcated,  would  expose  the  ingenuous 
youth  who  should  avow  them,  to  social  inconveniences,  to  paren¬ 
tal  disapprobation,  and  rarely  does  he  enjoy  ample  oportunity 
for  impartial  investigation,  before  adult  age.  The  fact  that  al¬ 
most  invariably,  young  persons  adopt  and  prefer  the  peculiar 
sectarian  views  of  their  parents,  is  a  demonstrative  proof  that 
their  preference  is  not  built  on  argument ,  that  the  mode  of  re¬ 
ligious  education  in  the  different  churches  is  unfavorable  to  im¬ 
partial  investigation.  The  simple  circumstance  of  parental  be¬ 
lief,  is  assuredly  no  satisfactory  proof  of  the  creed  which  we 
adopt  on  account  of  it.  For  the  same  reason,  we  would  have 
been  Mohammedans,  if  bom  in  Turkey,  Papists  in  Italy,  and 
worshippers  of  the  Grand  Lama  in  Thibet.  And  ministers  of 
the  gospel  have  still  greater  obstacles  to  surmount,  as  their  dis¬ 
belief  of  the  peculiarities  of  their  sect  tarnishes  their  reputation 
with  their  associates,  yea,  not  unfrequently  excludes  them  from 
their  pastoral  charge,  and  their  families  from  daily  bread  !  Is 
it  not  evident,  then,  that  the  state  of  the  Christian  church 
amongst  us  is  unfavorable  to  the  impartial  study  of  the  volume 
of  divine  truth  ? 

Lastly,  the  principle  of  sectarian  divisions  powerfully  retards 
the  spiritual  conquests  of  Christianity  over  the  world.  Who 
that  knows  aught  of  the  divine  life,  can  doubt,  that  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  he  permits  pride,  envy,  jealousy,  hatred  to  arise  in  his 
heart,  the  spirit  of  piety  languishes,  his  graces  decline  and  his 
sense  of  the  divine  presence  is  impaired  ?  But  sectarianism,  by 
which  in  this  discussion  we  generally  mean  the  principle  of  di¬ 
visions  on  the  ground  of  difference,  in  nonessentials  among  those 


19 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

who  profess  to  regard  each  other  as  fellow  Christians,  sectarian¬ 
ism  indubitably  creates  various  conflicting  interests,  presents  nu¬ 
merous  occasions  and  temptations  to  envy,  hatred,  jealousy,  slan¬ 
der,  and  creates  an  atmosphere  around  the  Christian,  in  which 
the  flame  of  piety  cannot  burn  with  lustre,  and  not  unfrequently 
expires. 

What  observer  of  transpiring  scenes  can  doubt,  that  the  sec¬ 
tarian  strife  and  animosity  between  the  churches,  deter  many 
sinners  from  making  religion  the  subject  of  their  chief  concern 
and  from  being  converted  to  God  ?  The  Saviour  prayed  :  That 
they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou  Father  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee  ;  that 
they  may  also  be  one  in  us  ;  that  the  world  may  believe  that 
thou  hast  sent  me.”  Here  then,  the  Saviour  himself  informs 
us  what  influence  unity  among  his  followers  was  designed  to 
effect ;  history  tells  that  when  surrounding  heathen  were  con¬ 
strained  to  say  “  see  how  these  Christians  love  one  another,” 
the  moral  influence  of  their  example  was  amazing  :  and  who 
can  doubt  that  inverse  causes  produce  inverse  effects. 

How  often  does  not  the  principle  of  sect,  exclude  the  bles¬ 
sed  Saviour  from  our  villages  and  sparsely  populated  sections  of 
country,  in  which  united  Christians  might  support  the  gos¬ 
pel  ;  but  cut  up  into  jealous  and  discordant  sects,  and  hating 
one  another  as  though  each  believed  a  different  Christ,  all  re¬ 
main  destitute  of  the  stated  means  of  grace  !  The  occasional 
visits  of  ministers  of  different  sects  serve  to  confirm  each  party 
in  its  own  predilections,  and  thus  we  often  witness  the  melan¬ 
choly  spectacle  of  the  Saviour  excluded  from  such  places  by 
the  dissensions  of  his  professed  friends,  and  sinners  shut  out 
from  the  sanctuary  of  God  because  saints  cannot  agree  whether 
Paul  or  Apollos  or  Cephas  shall  minister  unto  them. 

Nor  is  the  principle  of  sect,  less  unfriendly  to  the  spread  of 
the  gospel  in  heathen  lands.  By  often  stationing  on  the  same 
ground  at  home,  more  men  than  are  necessary,  or  can  be  sup¬ 
ported,  laborers  are  improperly  withdrawn  from  the  destitute 
portions  of  the  field,  which  is  “  the  world  conflicting  inter¬ 
ests  unavoidably  arise  among  the  ministers  and  churches  thus 
crowded  together  ;  as  all  cannot  long  continue,  a  struggle  for 
existence  is  carried  on,  more  or  less  openly,  and  with  different 
degrees  of  violence,  until  the  failure  of  one  or  more  drives  them 
from  the  field,  and  makes  room  for  the  others.  Nor  is  this  con¬ 
flict  to  be  attributed  so  much  to  the  want  of  piety  in  the  parties, 
as  to  that  actual  conflict  of  interests  which  unavoidably  results 


20 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

from  the  influence  of  sects.  But  certainly  every  true  Christian 
must  deplore  this  state  of  things,  and  it  is  the  writer’s  deliberate 
conviction,  that  one  of  the  bitterest  ingredients  in  the  cup  of 
ministerial  sorrow,  in  many  portions  of  our  land,  is  this  unholy 
and  unhappy  strife  among  brothers.  In  short  it  is  a  solemn  and 
mournful  truth,  that  sectarianism,  the  principle  of  sect,  in  a 
great  measure  changes  the  direction  in  which  the  energies  of 
the  church  are  applied,  transfers  the  seat  of  war  from  pagan 
to  Christian  lands ,  from  the  territory  of  Christ’s  enemies  into 
the  very  family  of  his  friends  !  In  the  beginning  the  church 
of  the  Redeemer  at  peace  at  home,  directed  all  her  surplus  en¬ 
ergies  against  the  world  around  her  and  the  world  of  Jews  and 
Gentiles  in  foreign  lands.  The  war  was  waged  not  by  one 
portion  of  Christ’s  family  against  another,  but  emphatically 
and  distinctly  by  the  church  against  the  world ;  such  was  the 
almighty  force  of  the  spiritual  artillery  wielded  in  this  holy  war, 
that  in  about  three  hundred  years  the  little  band  of  fishermen 
and  tentmakers,  fought  their  way  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the 
Roman  empire,  and  the  banner  of  king  Jesus,  which  was  first 
unfurled  in  the  valleys  of  Judea,  was  waving  in  triumph  o’er 
the  palace  of  the  Caesars.  But  who  can  deny,  that  a  large  por¬ 
tion  of  the  energies  of  Christian  sects  is  now  expended  in  con¬ 
tending  with  each  other,  in  building  up  walls  of  partition,  in  for¬ 
tifying  and  defending  those  peculiar  views  by  which  they  are 
kept  asunder  ?  The  war  is  no  longer  a  foreign,  it  is  an  intes¬ 
tine  one.  How  large  a  portion  of  the  periodical  literature  of 
the  day  is  occupied  in  these  family  feuds,  and  consists  of  mere 
“  doubtful  disputations  !”  How  large  a  portion  of  ministerial 
talent  is  placed  in  requisition  to  sustain  this  conflict  ?  How 
many  precious  hours  of  time  are  thus  applied  ?  If  all  the  time 
and  talent  and  effort  spent  by  the  orthodox  protestant  churches 
in  disputing  with  one  another  about  the  points  of  their  differ¬ 
ence,  since  the  blessed  Reformation,  had  been  devoted  to  the 
projects  of  benevolent  enterprise  for  the  unconverted  heathen 
world,  who  can  calculate  the  progress  that  might  have  been 
made  in  evangelizing  the  gentile  nations  ?  Let  every  true  dis¬ 
ciple  of  the  Saviour  inquire,  why  do  600  millions  of  our  fellow 
men  languish  in  the  shadows  of  death  eighteen  hundred  years 
after  the  blessed  gospel  has  been  entrusted  to  Christian  hands 
for  them  ?  Four  and  fifty  times  has  the  entire  population  of 
the  globe  been  swept  into  eternity,  since  the  Saviour  commis¬ 
sioned  his  disciples  to  publish  the  glad  tidings  to  every  crea- 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


21 


ture.  Who  that  has  witnessed  the  prompt  and  overwhelming 
blessing  of  God  on  the  efforts  of  the  little  band  of  Christians  in 
Europe  and  America  during  the  last  thirty  years  ;  who  that  has 
seen  a  nation  new-created  almost  in  a  day  in  the  isles  of  the 
Pacific,  and  witnessed  the  standard  of  the  cross  erected  in  Af¬ 
rica,  in  Greece,  in  Turkey,  in  Hindoostan,  in  Ceylon,  in  China 
and  many  other  places  ;  and  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  Son  of 
God  translated  into  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  languages;  who 
that  reflects  on  the  millions  of  Bibles  and  the  tens  of  millions  of 
tracts  which  the  united  bands  of  liberal  minded  Christians  have 
sent  forth,  can  doubt  that  if  the  Christian  church  had  not  be¬ 
come  secularized  by  the  unhappy  union  with  the  civil  govern¬ 
ment  under  Constantine  in  the  fourth  century,  the  world  had 
long  ago  been  evangelized.  Or  if  the  Protestant  church  had 
not  been  split  into  so  many  parties  by  adopting  the  new,  and 
we  must  believe  unauthorized  and  pernicious  doctrine,  that  they 
had  a  right  to  adopt  for  themselves  and  require  of  others  as 
terms  of  communion,  not  only  the  fundamental  doctrines  which 
were  required  in  the  earlier  centuries  and  were  supposed  suf¬ 
ficient  for  hundreds  of  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  but  also  as 
many  additional  and  disputed  points  as  they  pleased ,  thus  di¬ 
viding  the  body  of  Christ  and  creating  internal  dissensions  ;  who 
that  is  acquainted  with  her  history  can  doubt  that  greater,  far 
greater,  inroads  would  have  been  made  into  the  dominions  of 
the  papal  beast,  and  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  in 
the  three  centuries  since  the  Reformation,  have  been  carried 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

Such  then  being  the  mournful  consequences  of  that  disunion 
against  which  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  so  urgently  admon¬ 
ished  their  followers,  we  feel  with  double  force,  that  the  church 
has  been  guilty  of  suicidal  error,  and  that  it  is  the  solemn  duty 
of  every  friend  of  Jesus,  sincerely  to  inquire,  Lord  what  wouldst 
thou  have  me  do  to  heal  the  wounds  of  thy  dismembered  body  ! 


CHAPTER  II. 

J  .  ,  .  »  |  '  i 

Deeply  impressed  with  the  conviction,  that  the  blessed  Sa¬ 
viour  and  his  apostles  have  explicitly  inhibited  the  division  of 
the  body  of  Christ  into  sectarian  parties  or  factions,  and  fully 
persuaded  that  these  divisions  which  exist  among  Protestants 

4 


22 


Dr.  SchmucJcer’s  Appeal. 

generally,  at  least  with  their  present  concomitants ,  are  highly 
prejudicial  to  the  prosperity  of  Zion ;  let  us  approach  the  in¬ 
quiry,  what  is  the  ;  more  immediate  and  specific  nature  of  that 
union ,  which  characterized  the  primitive  church,  and  which  it 
is  obligatory  on  us  to  promote.  As  Protestants,  who  are  ready 
to  exclaim  with  Chillingworth,  “  the  Bible,  the  Bible”  is  the 
only  infallible  source  of  our  religion,  we  must  naturally  turn  our 
eyes  to  its  sacred  pages  ;  nor  can  we  with  safety  rely  on  the 
practice  of  the  church  in  any  subsequent  age,  except  in  so  far 
as  it  accords  with  apostolical  example,  or  at  least  is  a  manifest 
development  of  principles  clearly  inculcated  in  the  gospel.  It 
is  indeed  worthy  of  remark,  that  we  know  next  to  nothing  of 
the  history  of  the  Christian  church  during  more  than  a  hundred 
years  after  its  first  establishment,  except  what  is  contained  in 
the  New  Testament.  This  has  often  been  regretted  by  men  ; 
but  God  has  doubtless  designedly  enveloped  that  early  period 
of  her  uninspired  history  in  darkness,  to  compel  us  to  rest  en¬ 
tirely  on  his  own  infallible  word,  and  to  draw  a  clear  and  broad 
line  of  distinction  between  the  authority  of  his  inspired  servants 
and  that  of  the  fathers  of  the  church  in  after  ages.  The  histo¬ 
ry  and  practice  of  the  earlier  ages  when  known,  may  afford  an 
occasional  illustration  of  our  subject ;  yet,  as  protestants,  we  can 
acknowledge  nothing  as  essential  to  the  character  of  the  church, 
or  the  duties  of  her  members,  which  is  not  distinctly  contained 
in  the  sacred  volume. 

It  is  certain,  that  this  union  did  not  consist  in  any  compact 
ecclesiastical  organization  of  the  entire  church  in  a  nation  or 
empire  under  one  supreme  judicatory . 

Excepting  an  occasional  interposition  of  apostolical  authority, 
we  are  informed,  that  each  church  attended  to  its  own  affairs  of 
government  and  discipline.  Addressing  the  Corinthians,*  Paul 
says  “  Do  not  ye  judge  ( xylveie )  them  that  are  within  ?  There¬ 
fore  put  ye  away  ( i'taQuie )  from  among  yourselves  that  wick¬ 
ed  person  manifestly  attributing  to  the  Corinthians  the  right 
to  discipline  and  exclude  an  unworthy  member  from  their  body. 
The  same  right  of  supervision  and  discipline  over  her  members, 
is  attributed  to  each  individual  church  by  the  Saviour  himself  :j* 

“  ^  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  fault 
between  thee  and  him  alone” —  and  eventually,  if  other  means 
should  fail,  u  tell  it  to  the  church.”  Nor  do  we  find  in  either 
of  these  cases  any  ultimate  reference  to  a  judicatory  consisting 

*  1  Cor.  5:  12.  f  Matt.  18:  15—17.  See  also  2  Cor.  2:  7. 


23 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

of  representatives  from  several,  much  less  from  all  other  Chris¬ 
tian  churches.  The  phraseology*  of  the  New  Testament  evi¬ 
dently  implies,  that  each  church  was  a  distinct  and  complete 
church  and  a  member  of  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  however 
equally  certain,  that  the  New  Testament  presents  in  addition  to 
several  minor  consultations,  one  example  of  a  council  or  synod, f 
whose  members  were  “  the  apostles,  elders  (that  is,  preachers), 
and  brethren  (that  is,  lay  members),”  and  who  assembled  at 
Jerusalem  for  the  purpose  of  settling  a  dispute  touching  the  ob¬ 
ligation  of  Christian  converts  to  observe  “  the  law  of  Moses,  etc.” 
This  synod  was  convened  for  a  special  purpose,  was  a  pro  re 
nata  convention,  and  although  it  fully  sanctions  the  call  of  such 
meetings  as  often  as  necessary,  and  justifies  a  provision  for  sta¬ 
ted  meetings  if  experience  establishes  their  necessity  and  utility  ; 
yet  it  cannot  with  any  plausibility  be  alleged,  that  the  churches 
were  then  regularly  united  into  such  synods,  or  that  such  meet¬ 
ings  were  held  regularly,  at  fixed  times.  Had  they  been  of  an¬ 
nual  recurrence,  who  can  doubt  that  some  trace  of  the  fact,  or 
allusion  to  it,  would  be  found  in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles  or  the 
epistles  of  Paul,  which  cover  a  period  of  about  thirty  years,  and 
narrate  or  allude  to  the  prominent  events  in  the  history  of  the 
church  during  that  period  ?  These  facts  urge  upon  our  atten¬ 
tion  several  important  positions,  the  value  of  which  will  be  more 
evident  in  the  sequel.  'They  are  these  : 

a)  That  the  divine  Head  of  the  church  has  intrusted  the 
great  mass  of  the  duties  and  privileges  of  his  kingdom  to  the 
individual  churches  in  their  primary  capacity.  Hence,  though 
the  churches  ought  to  take  counsel  with  each  other,  and  for 
this  purpose  may  have  stated  meetings ,  and  constitute  regular 
synods ,  they  should  not  suffer  any  encroachments  on  their  rights, 
nor  permit  too  much  of  their  business  to  be  transacted  by  these 
delegated  associations  or  presbyteries  or  synods.  The  neglect 
of  this  caution  gradually  robbed  the  churches  of  their  rights 
and  liberties  in  past  ages,  and  fostered  that  incubus  of  Christiani¬ 
ty,  the  papal  hierarchy  at  Rome. 

b)  The  duty  of  fraternal  consultation  and  union  of  counsel 
ought  not  to  be  neglected  by  the  church  in  the  discharge  of 
her  duties.  This  principle  evidently  affords  sanction  to  the  va¬ 
rious  associations  among  the  churches  such  as  presbyteries,  sy- 

*  Gal.  1:2.  1  Cor.  16:  1.  2  Cor.  8:  1.  1  Thess.  2:  14.  Acts.  9:  31. 
15:  41. 

f  Acts  xv. 


24 


Dr.  Schmuckcr’s  Appeal. 

nods,  etc.,  for  the  purposes  of  mutual  counsel,  encouragement 
and  cooperation  in  the  performance  of  such  duties  as  can  best 
be  accomplished  by  conjunction  of  means  and  efforts.  Yet  the 
history  of  past  ages  distinctly  admonishes  us  to  beware  of  the 
natural  tendency  to  consolidation  in  church  as  well  as  State. 
There  is  doubtless  danger  of  the  concentration  of  power  in  the 
hands  of  ecclesiastical  judicatories,  which  has  in  former  ages, 
alas  !  been  but  too  frequently  abused  to  purposes  of  oppression 
and  bloodshed,  to  the  destruction  of  liberty  of  conscience,  and 
the  obstruction  of  the  Redeemer’s  spiritual  kingdom.  It  ap¬ 
pears  inexpedient  for  the  churches  to  devolve  on  their  delega¬ 
ted  judicatories,  such  duties  as  they  can  perform  as  well  in 
their  primary  capacity  for  another  reason  ;  because,  when  du¬ 
ties  of  various  kinds  are  accumulated  on  any  individual  bodies, 
they  must  necessarily  be  less  able  to  discharge  them  all  with 
efficiency. 

It  is  evident  then,  that  in  the  apostolic  age,  the  unity  of  the 
church  did  not  consist  in  a  compact  conjunction  of  all  her  parts 
in  an  ecclesiastical  judicatory.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  no 
accounts  of  any  synods  or  councils  after  that  age,  until  the  lat¬ 
ter  part  of  the  second  century.  Eusebius,  the  earliest  author 
by  whom  the  transactions  of  these  councils  are  recorded,  uses 
the  following  language,  from  which  it  is  highly  probable  that  such 
councils  were  nothing  new,  and  that  similar  ones  had  been  occa¬ 
sionally  held  during  the  previous  seventy-five  years  which  had 
intervened  since  the  death  of  the  last  apostle  :*  “  About  this 

time  appeared  Novatus,  a  presbyter  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
and  a  man  elated  with  haughtiness  against  those  (that  had  fall- 

c  *  Euseb.  Book  (>.  chapter  43.  JEjitidr]  ttsq  xr\  y.axa  tovtmv  ciQ^sig 
vnsQrj&avicc  Noovaiog  ir,g  Pcofiatwv  ixy.Xrjariag  7iQ£cr(jvT£Qog,  wg  [irjx&z 
ovdfjg  ctvzolg  cycoTtjQcag  sXTiidog^  ^Tjd  si  tiuvtix  sig  ETtiO'TQOcptjv  yvijcriciv 
xai>  xa&aQotv  £goy.oXoyrj<iLV  etilteXoIev,  idiag  ulQiasug  tcov  y.a ta  Xoyujfxov 
qpicnwcnv  Ka&aQovg  ectVTOvg  unocprjvaviwv,  cagyriyog  xa{H<na,zai .  Ecp 
at  avvodov piEyicTTyg  etu  Pwiurjg  cnjykQbJTtj&slar^g,  e^xovza  yiEv  tov  ciql&- 
flOV  ETIIO'XOTIMV^  TlXsiOVMV  ds  £T L  fXttXXoV  TlQEfffivTEQWV  TE  y.dl  SiCCXOVWV, 
idsojg  T£  nazct  rag  Xon uxg  inuqyiag  t mv  xutu  ywgav  tioi/uevcov  tteqI  tov 
nQaxTsov  diMaxEipttnivwv,  doy/na  naQiaTcacu  io~ig  noun  4  Tov  (zsv  Noovoc- 
xov  at uct  t dig ^  a vico  crvvsnotfj&Eiai,  zovg  ts  crvvEvdoxElv  rfj  [ucradtXqib)  xal 
anavdQMnoTUTT]  yv(a[ir)  %  avdyog  n(joouQOfxvErovg,  sv  aXXoiQioig  i?jg  hxX?]- 
criag  iiy£tcr&cu  ‘  t ovg  ds  t avpcpoQU  nEQinEmoiXOTitg  tmv  adsXywv,  iacr- 
•d~cu  xcu  S^E^nnsvEiv  t dig  T?jg  [xicivoiuG  (poiQuvty.oig.  Edit.  Zinunenriann, 
Vol.  I.  p.  464,  465, 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


25 

en),  as  if  there  were  no  room  for  them  to  hope  for  salvation y 
not  even  if  they  performed  all  things  which  belong  to  a  genuine 
conversion,  and  a  pure  confession.  He  thus  became  the  leader 
of  the  peculiar  sect  of  those,  who  inflated  by  vain  imaginations, 
called  themselves  Cathari.  A  very  large  council  being  held  at 
Rome  on  this  account,  at  which  sixty  bishops  and  a  still  great¬ 
er  number  of  presbyters  and  deacons  were  present,  and  the  pas¬ 
tors  of  the- remaining  provinces,  having  according  to  their  loca¬ 
tion  deliberated  separately  what  should  be  done ;  this  decree 
was  passed  by  all :  That  Novatus  and  those  who  so  arrogantly 
united  with  him,  and  those  that  had  chosen  to  adopt  the  unchar¬ 
itable  and  most  inhuman  opinion  of  the  man,  should  be  ranked 
among  such  as  are  aliens  from  the  church  (excluded)  ;  but  that 
such  of  the  brethren,  as  had  fallen  during  the  calamity  (perse¬ 
cution),  should  be  treated  and  healed  with  the  remedies  of  re¬ 
pentance.” 

This  is  the  earliest  account  extant  of  any  regular  synod  after 
the  apostolic  age.  The  absence  of  even  the  least  intimation, 
that  this  assembly  was  any  thing  novel,  confers  a  high  degree 
of  probability  on  the  supposition  that  other  similar  meetings  had 
occasionally  occurred  before.  But  it  was  not  until  the  close  of 
the  second,  or  beginning  of  the  third  century,  that  these  asso¬ 
ciations  began  to  hold  regular  and  stated  meetings.  This  prac¬ 
tice  was  first  introduced  in  Greece,  where  the  popular  mind  had 
been  familiarized  to  such  stated  representative  conventions,  by 
the  Amphictionic  Council,  and  would  naturally  be  inclined  to 
transfer  to  the  church,  what  had  proved  so  acceptable  in  State.* 
Still  the  introduction  of  regular  stated  meetings  had  to  encoun¬ 
ter  some  opposition,  for  Tertullian,  in  the  commencement  of 
the  third  century,  found  it  necessary  to  undertake  their  defence.^ 
By  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  however,  these  stated  an¬ 
nual  meetings  had  become  very  general. J  Lay  representatives 

*  See  Neander’s  Kirchengeschichte,  Vol.  I.  p.  322.  Tertullian’s 
words  are,  “  Aguntur  per  Graecias  ilia  certis  in  locis  concilia,  ex  uni- 
versis  ecclesiis,  per  quae  et  altiora  quaeque  in  commune  tractantur  et 
ipsa  representatio  totius  nominis  Christian*!  magna  veneratione  cele- 
bratur.”  De  Jejuniis,  c,  13. 

f  “  Ista  solennia,  quibus  tunc  praesens  patrocinatus  est  Sermo.” — 
Tertullian. 

{  Cyprian.  Ep.  40.  and  Firmilianus,  (apud  Cyprian.  Ep.  75.)  of 
Cappadocia  :  Necessario  apud  nos  fit,  ut  per  singulos  annos  seniores 
et  praepositi  in  unum  conveniamus,  ad  disponenda  ea  quae  curae 
mostrae  commissa  sunt.  Neander  sup.  cit.  p.  322. 


26 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

were  at  first  admitted  to  these  councils,  as  the  “  brethren”  evi¬ 
dently  had  been  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  but  in  process  of  time 
the  bishops  secured  all  this  power  to  themselves.*  These  con¬ 
ventions  were  merely  provincial,  and  embraced  the  churches  of 
only  one  particular  country  or  province.  The  entire  Christian 
church  was  not  yet  united  by  any  supreme  judicatory,  having 
jurisdiction  over  all  its  parts,  as  eventually  occurred  under  the 
papal  hierarchy  ;  but  here  we  find  for  the  first  time  a  visible 
union  of  all  the  acknowledged  churches  in  a  particular  coun¬ 
try  under  one  ecclesiastical  judicatory .  Such  an  extensive 
union  in  one  judicatory,  could  not  long  fail  to  abridge  freedom 
of  investigation  and  liberty  of  conscience ;  if  its  powers  were 
not  purely  those  of  an  advisory  council ,  and  its  advice  confined 
to  matters  originating  between  the  smaller  judicatories  and  con¬ 
templating  their  relation  to  each  other,  and  the  progress  of  the 
church  in  general. 

Again,  the  primitive  unity  of  the  church  of  Christ  did  not 
consist  in  the  organization  of  the  whole  church  on  earth  under 
one  visible  head ,  such  as  the  pope  at  Rome  and  the  papal  hie¬ 
rarchy.  We  shall  not  here  stop  to  prove,  that  the  power  given 
alike  by  the  Saviour  to  all  the  apostles,*]*  could  not  confer  any 
peculiar  authority  on  Peter  :  nor  that  Peter’s  having  professed 
the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour’s  Messiahship,  on  which  the  Lord 
founded  his  church,  does  not  prove  that  he  founded  it  on  Peter 
himself,  making  him  and  his  successors  his  vicars  upon  earth. 
It  is  admitted  by  all  Protestants  that  the  pope  is  a  creature  as 
utterly  unknown  to  the  Bible  as  is  the  Grand  Lama  of  the 
Tartars.  It  is  well  known,  that  the  papal  hierarchy  is  the 
gradual  production  of  many  centuries  of  corruption.  In  the 
third  century  the  churches  of  a  particular  kingdom  or  province, 
were  united  by  provincial  synods  ;  but  it  remained  for  the  ar¬ 
dent  African  bishop  Cyprian,  after  the  middle  of  the  third  cen- 
tury,  by  an  unhappy  confusion  of  the  visible  with  the  invisible 
church,  to  develope  in  all  its  lineaments  the  theory  of  a  neces- 

#  Neander  sup.  cit.  p.  324. 

f  Matt.  16:  19 :  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  (Peter  v.  18)  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth, 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.  Chap.  18:  1,  18  :  At  the  same  time  came 
the  disciples  unto  Jesus,  etc. — He  said — Verily  I  say  unto  you  (disci¬ 
ples  v.  1)  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  hea¬ 
ven  :  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal.  27 

sary  visible  union  of  the  whole  church  on  earth  in  one  uniform 
external  organization,  under  a  definite  apostolic  succession  of 
bishops,  as  the  essential  channel  of  the  Spirit’s  influences  on 
earth,  transmitted  by  ordination.*  It  is  only  under  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  this  confused  theory,  that  enlightened  and  good  men 
could  believe  in  the  impossibility  of  salvation  without  the  pales 
of  their  own  visible  church  !  That  such  a  man  as  Augustine , 
could  advance  the  following  sentiments  in  the  official  epistle  of 
the  Synod  assembled  at  Cirra  in  the  year  412  :  Quisquis  ab 
bac  catholica  ecclesia  fuerit  separatus,  quantumlibet  laudabiliter 
se  vivere  existimet,  hoc  solo  scelere,  quod  a  Christi  imitate  dis- 
junctus  est,  non  habebit  vitam,  sed  ira  Dei  manet  super  ipsum. 
Quisquis  autem  in  ecclesia  bene  vixerit,  nihil  ei  praejudicant 
aliena  peccata,  quia  unusquisque  in  ea  proprium  onus  port ahitT 
et  quicunque  in  ea  corpus  Christi  manducaverit  indigne,  judi¬ 
cium  sibi'  manducat  et  bibit ,  quo  satis  ostendit  apostolus,  quia 
non  alteri  manducat  sed  sibi — communio  malorum  non  maculat 
aliquem  participatione  sacramentorum,  sed  consensione  facto- 
rum.f  And  in  his  own  work  “  De  fide  et  symbolcq”  written 
about  twenty  years  earlier,  he  says  :  J  “  We  believe  that  the 
church  is  both  holy  and  universal  (i.  e.  one).  The  heretics , 
however ,  also  denominate  their  congregations  churches.  But 
they ,  by  entertaining^  false  views  concerning  God,  do  violence 
to  the  Christian  faith  :  the  schismatics  on  the  other  hand , 
although  they  agree  with  us  in  doctrine ,  forsake  brotherly  love 
by  creating  pernicious  divisions. ” 

It  is  easily  perceptible,  how  this  erroneous  idea  of  the  neces¬ 
sary  visible  combination  of  all  the  churches  under  one  organiza- 

*  Neander’s  Kirchengeschichte,  Vol.  I.  p.  330,  331. 

f  Fuch’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenversammlungen,  Vol.  III.  p.  303. 

“  Whoever  separates  himself  from  this  universal  church,  however 
praiseworthy  he  may  suppose  his  general  conduct  to  be,  shall  not 
obtain  life  on  account  of  this  crime  alone ,  that  he  is  separated  from 
the  unity  of  Christ,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him.  But  who¬ 
ever  leads  an  exemplary  life  in  the  church,  shall  not  be  injured  by  the 
sins  of  others,  because  in  it  (the  church)  everyone  shall  bear  his  own 
burden,  and  whoever  eateth  the  body  of  Christ  unworthily,  shall  eat 
and  drink  judgment  to  himself,  by  which  the  apostle  clearly  shows, 
that  as  he  eats  not  for  another,  but  for  himself, — it  is  not  the  commu¬ 
nion  with  the  wicked  in  the  reception  of  the  sacraments,  which  con¬ 
taminates  any  one,  but  his  assent  to  their  evil  deeds.” 

t  Koepler’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater,  Vol.  IV.  p.  240. 


28 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


lion,  as  the  supposed  exclusive  channel  of  the  divine  influence 
and  favor,  would  naturally  tend  to  facilitate  the  ultimate  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  papal  hierarchy  ;  for  here,  and  here  alone,  in  the 
holy  father,  is  to  be  found  one  visible,  tangible  head,  adapted 
to  the  one  universal  visible  church.  That  this  opinion  how¬ 
ever,  was  not  that  of  the  apostles  or  of  the  apostolic  age,  is 
confirmed  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  all  writers  in  the 
earlier  centuries.  On  this  subject  an  interesting  testimony  has 
reached  us  in  the  Apostolic  Canons,  so  called  because  the  work 
professes  to  be  and  in  the  main  is  a  collection  of  the  principal 
customs  and  regulations  for  the  government,  discipline,  etc.  of 
the  Christian  church  during  the  first  four  centuries  from  the  days 
of  the  apostles.  It  was  most  probably  compiled  shortly  after 
the  time  of  Augustine,  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and 
clearly  proves  that  the  exclusive  pretensions  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome  were  not  acknowledged  even  at  that  time  :  It  reads  thus : 

Canon  33.  The  bishops  of  each  nation  should  know  the 
principal  one  among  them ,  and  regard  him  as  their  head  ( zovg 
inioxoTiovg  ixaozov  ixtvovg  iidevac  ygtj  tov  tv  avzocg  nQwzov,yiul 
ijytiG&cu  avzov  cog  xtcpcdqv')  and  undertake  nothing  of  impor¬ 
tance  without  his  advice.  But  each  one  should  himself  attend 
to  what  belongs  to  his  own  church  and  neighborhood.  But 
even  he  ought  to  do  nothing  without  consultation  with  others 
(dXXu  fxridt  ixtivog  avev  zrjg  navzcov  yvwy^g  noitizco  zef  Herein 
consists  the  true  unity  (of  the  church ),  and  such  a  course  will 
tend  to  the  glory  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  Holy 
Spirit .” 

In  short  it  is  well  known,  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  did  not 
obtain  even  the  title  of  universal  bishop  until,  in  the  seventh 
century,  “  Boniface  III.  engaged  Phocas,  the  Grecian  Emperor, 
who  waded  to  the  throne  through  the  blood  of  Mauritius,  to 
take  from  the  bishop  of  Constantinople  the  title  of  oecumenical 
or  universal  bishop,  and  to  confer  it  on  the  Roman  pontiff.” 
His  dignity  as  a  temporal  prince  he  did  not  receive  till  in  the 
eighth  century,  when  the  usurper  Pepin,  in  consideration  of  the 
aid  afforded  him  by  the  pontiff  in  treasonably  dethroning  his 
predecessor,  granted  “  the  exarchate  of  Ravenna,  and  Penta- 
polis”  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  his  successors  in  the  pretended 
apostolic  see  of  St.  Peter.  There  can  therefore  be  no  question 
as  to  the  truth  of  our  position,  that  the  primitive  church  was 
not  united  under  one  visible  head,  such  as  the  pope  and  papal 
hierarchy. 


29 


Dr.  Schmucker-  $  Appeal. 

Finally,  it  is  certain  that  the  unity  of  the  primitive  church 
did  not  consist  in  absolute  unanimity  in  religious  sentiments. 
This  assertion  may  appear  startling  to  some.  “  What !”  (some 
of  my  readers  may  be  ready  to  exclaim)  “  was  there  any  diver¬ 
sity  of  opinion  in  the  primitive  church,  under  apostolic  guidance? 
we  have  always  supposed,  that  there  existed  a  perfect  agree¬ 
ment  on  all  points  among  the  first  Christians,  and  that  the  proper 
method  to  restore  the  primitive  purity  of  the  church  is  to  insist 
on  agreement  on  all  points  from  those  who  could  unite  with  us 
as  a  church  of  Christ.”  This  opinion  has  also  prevailed  for 
many  centuries,  and  has  been  the  prolific  mother  of  extensive 
and  incalculable  evils  in  the  Christian  church.  It  has  led  to  the 
persecution  and  death  of  millions  of  our  fellow  men  under  the 
papal  dominion,  it  has  caused  endless  divisions  and  envyings 
and  strife  in  the  Protestant  churches. 

Its  fallacy  we  think  appears  from  the  following  considerations  : 

It  is  rendered  highly  probable  by  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures 
contain  no  provision  to  preserve  absolute  unity  of  sentiment  on 
all  points  of  religious  doctrines  and  worship  if  it  ever  had  existed. 
Many  points  of  doctrine  and  forms  which  men  at  present  regard 
as  important,  are  not  decided  at  all  in  the  sacred  volume.  Other 
points  are  inculcated  in  indefinite  language,  which  admits  of  sev¬ 
eral  constructions.  The  diversity  of  views  derived  from  these 
records  by  the  several  religious  denominations  of  equal  piety,  of 
equal  talent  and  equal  sincerity,  indisputably  establishes  the  fact, 
that  they  do  not  contain  provision  for  absolute  unity  of  sentiment 
among  Christians.  Now  as  all  admit  the  substantial  similarity 
of  the  oral  instructions  of  the  apostles  to  the  primitive  Christians, 
and  their  written  instructions  in  the  sacred  volume,  it  follows 
that  the  impressions  made  on  an  audience  of  primitive  Chris¬ 
tians  would  be  the  same  ;  except  perhaps  in  the  case  of  a  few 
individuals  who  might  have  opportunity  of  personal  interviews 
and  more  minute  inquiry  with  the  apostles.  With  the  greatest 
facility  the  Author  of  our  holy  religion  could  have  made  such 
provision.  He  did  by  inspiration  endow  his  apostles  with  every 
requisite  qualification  not  naturally  possessed  by  them,  and  led 
them  into  all  necessary  truth.  Now  as  they  have  left  many 
points  of  doctrine  and  forms  of  worship  and  government  unde¬ 
cided,  and  as  they  do  not  express  with  philosophical  precision 
the  doctrines  which  they  do  teach,  it  is  a  just  inference  that  one 
reason  why  these  minor  differences  are  not  obviated  in  the 
chuich,  and  all  truly  pious,  able  and  faithful  Christians  do 


30 


Dr.  Sclmucker' s  Appeal. 


not  agree  on  all  points  is,  that  the  sacred  volume  has  not  made 
provision  for  such  absolute  unanimity.  Let  no  one  here  assert 
that  human  language  is  so  deficient,  and  the  education  and 
habits  of  men  so  diverse,  that  they  will  impose  different  con¬ 
structions  on  any  composition.  The  contrary  is  the  case. 
Even  uninspired  men  of  well  disciplined  mind,  have  often  ex¬ 
pressed  their  views  on  these  topics  in  language  which  is  not  mis¬ 
understood.  Is  there  any  doubt,  in  any  well  informed  mind,  as 
to  the  opinions  taught  on  the  several  topics  which  separate  the 
principal  protestant  churches,  by  Calvin  in  his  Institutes,  or  by 
Whitby  on  the  Five  Points?  In  regard  to  the  meaning  of 

J  o  O 

some  protestant  creeds  there  has  been,  it  is  true,  not  a  little 
controversy.  But  the  framers  of  these  Confessions  designedly 
used  language  somewhat  generic  and  indefinite,  in  order  that 
persons  of  not  entirely  accordant  sentiments  might  sign  them, 
and  modern  disputants  of  each  party  have  endeavored  to  prove 
these  creeds  favorable  only  to  their  own  views.  Or,  persons 
charged  with  deviation  from  an  adopted  creed,  and  believing 
themselves  to  adhere  to  its  general  tenor,  are  naturally  inclined 
to  interpret  its  indefinite  or  generic  terms  in  favor  of  their  own 
views,  whilst  their  opponents,  pursuing  a  contrary  course,  strain 
those  same  expressions  as  far  as  possible  in  a  different  direction. 
But  it  will  not  he  fienied,  that  it  would  be  no  difficult  task  for 
any  well  educated  divine  to  make,  in  a  single  octavo  page,  such 
a  statement  of  doctrines,  as  would  distinguish  any  one  of  the 
prominent  protestant  denominations  from  all  others, — to  frame  a 
creed,  concerning  whose  real  meaning,  there  would  be  no  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinion.  Therefore,  as  the  written  instructions  of 
the  apostles  and  other  inspired  writers,  do  not  contain  provision 
to  produce  absolute  unanimity  among  the  pious  since  the  apos¬ 
tolic  age,  and  as  these  very  written  instructions  were  addressed 
to  the  primitive  Christians,  and  were  the  only  inspired  instruc¬ 
tions  which  many  of  them  possessed  ;  there  can  be  but  little 
doubt,  that  if  a  dozen  of  those  Christians  had  been  required  to 
state  their  views  on  all  the  points  of  diversity  between  protes¬ 
tant  Christians,  it  would  have  been  found,  that  the  impressions 
then  made  bv  these  books,  were  not  more  definite  than  those 
which  they  now  produce  on  the  same  points  of  doctrine.  And 
as  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles  was  doubtless  substantially  the 
same  as  their  recorded  instructions ;  the  impression  made  by 
them  on  the  entire  primitive  church  was  probably  the  same  so 
far  as  doctrines  are  concerned  ;  whilst  it  is  evident,  that  in  re- 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


31 


gard  to  the  apostles’  mode  of  worship  and  church  government, 
there  could  have  been  but  one  opinion,  among  those  who  had 
witnessed  them  with  their  own  eyes.  Again,  the  fact  that  the 
Bible  is  not  constituted  so  as  to  obviate  this  diversity  of  senti¬ 
ment,  when  it  might  easily  have  been  so  formed  by  the  hand 
of  inspiration,  is  conclusive  proof  that  the  points  of  diversity 
among  real  and  enlightened  Christians ,  are  not  and  cannot  be 
of  essential  importance. 

But  the  existence  of  diversity  of  opinion  in  the  apostolic 
churches  is  placed  beyond  all  possible  doubt  by  the  express 
declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul ,  who,  knowing  that  such  differ¬ 
ences  would  continue  to  exist  in  after  ages,  has  also  prescribed 
regulations  for  our  conduct  towards  those  who  may  differ  from 
us :  *  “  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith,  receive  ye  but  not  (in 

order)  to  (engage  in)  disputations  with  him  about  doubtful  mat¬ 
ters.  For  one  believeth  that  he  may  eat  all  things :  another, 
who  is  weak,  eateth  herbs.  Let  not  him  that  eatetb,  despise 
him  that  eateth  not ;  and  let  not  him  that  eateth  not,  judge  him 
that  eateth  ;  for  God  hath  received  him.  Who  art  thou  that 
judgest  another  man’s  servant  ?  To  his  own  master  he  standeth 
or  falleth. — One  man  esteem eth  one  day  above  another  ;  anoth¬ 
er  esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  per¬ 
suaded  in  his  own  mind.  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth 
it  to  the  Lord  ;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord 
he  doth  not  regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  for 
he  giveth  God  thanks  ;  and  he  that  eateth  not,  to  the  Lord  he 
eateth  not,  and  giveth  God  thanks.  —  But  why  dost  thou  judge 
thy  brother  ?  or  why  dost  thou  set  at  nought  thy  brother  ?  for 
we  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.” 

Here  then  we  have  the  express  testimony  of  the  apostle,  that 
differences  of  opinion  did  exist  among  the  primitive  Christians 
at  Rome  in  reference  to  at  least  two  points,  the  diversity  of 
meats  and  the  question  whether  all  days  should  be  regarded  as 
equally  holy,  or  whether  the  Jewish  distinction  of  days  should 
be  observed  by  Christians.  Both  the  points  of  difference  are 
moreover  of  such  a  character,  relating  to  matters  of  fact,  tangi¬ 
ble  and  visible  in  their  nature,  that  any  regulation  which  the 
apostle  may  have  previously  given,  Christians  would  be  aided 
in  comprehending,  by  observing  the  example  and  practice  of 
the  apostles  themselves.  They  were  matters  too  concerning 


*  Rom.  14:  1 — 13, 


32 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


one  of  which  he  had  seven  years  before  expressed  his  opinion 
in  pretty  evident  language  to  the  Galatian  brethren,  when  he 
said  :  *  “  How  turn  ye  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  ele¬ 
ments  whereunto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage  ?  Ye  ob¬ 
serve  days  and  months  and  times  and  years  ;  I  am  afraid  of 
you  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain.”  And  how 
does  the  apostle  settle  this  dispute  among  the  Romans  ?  How 
does  he  introduce  perfect  unity  of  sentiment  among  them  on 
this  point  of  Christian  duty  ?  It  is  worthy  of  special  observa¬ 
tion,  that  he  does  not  even  attempt  to  induce  them  all  to  think 
alike  ;  but  enjoins  on  each  one  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  his 
own  conscience,  and  on  all  abstinence  from  every  attempt  to 
condemn  or  censure  their  brethren  for  honest  difference  of  opin¬ 
ion  ;  he  enjoins  on  all  mutual  forbearance  and  brotherly  unity  ! 
Be  it  remembered  too,  that  this  point  of  difference  among  the 
primitive  Christians, f  is  one,  on  which  the  declarations  of  the 
New  Testament  have  produced  pretty  general  unanimity  among 
modern  protestant  Christians,  whilst  it  is  a  matter  of  historical 
notoriety  that  the  diversity  on  this  very  topic  was  not  entirely 
banished  from  the  primitive  church  a  century  after  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  which  touch  on  the  subject  had  been 
written. 

Again,  look  at  the  church  of  Corinth  itself,  whose  attempts 
at  division  Paul  so  decidedly  censured.  The  apostle  explicitly 
informs  us,  that  some  members  of  the  Corinthian  church  deni¬ 
ed  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  As  to  the  reason  of  their  de¬ 
nial,  whether  the  leaven  of  the  Sadducees  had  infected  them, 
or  whether,  as  Greeks,  they  were  misled  by  their  philosophy 
falsely  so  called,  and  with  Celsus  despised  the  doctrine  as  “  the 
hope  of  worms,”  the  elms  Gxcolyxwv,  we  know  not ;  but  for 
the  fact  Paul  is  our  authority.  “  How,”  he  remarks,  “  say 
some  among  you ,  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?” 
He  then  advances  several  arguments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine, 
answers  the  philosophical  objections  to  it,  and  proves  to  them 
the  fallacy  of  their  opinion  on  this  subject;  but  not  the  least 
intimation  is  given,  that  those  who  believe  in  the  resurrection 
should  separate  from  those  who  denied  it.  This  doctrine  had 

*  Gal.  4:  10. 

f  According  to  the  earliest  records  extant  the  difference  in  the 
time  of  celebrating  Easter  is  referred  to  the  apostles  themselves.  See 
Dr.  Murdock’s  Mosheim  I.  102,  103.  164. 


33 


Ur.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

not,  it  is  true,  been  so  amply  unfolded  by  any  inspired  writer 
as  is  done  by  Paul  in  his  epistle  to  these  very  men,  and  we  are 
unable  to  perceive  how  any  believer  in  the  Scriptures  could 
now  deny  this  doctrine.  Yet  the  fact  of  the  resurrection,  to 
say  nothing  of  the  Old  Testament,  had  been  distinctly  affirmed 
by  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles,  as  must  have  been  known  to 
the  Corinthians. 

It  is  therefore  absolutely  certain  that  the  bond  of  primitive 
union,  was  not  that  of  perfect  unity  of  sentiment  on  religious 
subjects  even  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  themselves.  That  dif¬ 
ferences  on  other  topics,  especially  on  minor  points  of  abstract 
doctrine,  also  existed,  is  evident  from  the  fact  expressly  decla¬ 
red,  that  some  even  went  so  far  as  to  fall  into  fundamental  doc¬ 
trinal  error,  such  as  to  “  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them.” 
Now  every  rational  man  will  admit,  that  the  progress  of  the 
human  mind  in  the  fluctuation  of  opinions  is  gradual,  and  that 
where  the  extremes  occurred  the  intermediate  gradations  must 
have  existed.  It  seems  almost  impossible  for  a  mind  elevated 
but  a  single  grade  above  savageism,  when  for  example  the  doc* 
trine  was  taught  that  Christ  made  an  atonement  for  sinners,  not 
to  advert  to  the  persons  for  whom  this  atonement  was  made, 
and  to  understand  the  declarations  of  the  gospel  as  teaching, 
that  it  was  made  for  somebody,  either  for  all  men  or  a  portion 
of  mankind.  But  although  we  have  no  reason  to  imagine  that 
the  same  books  which  are  differently  understood  by  modern 
Christians,  could  have  produced  absolute  unity  of  opinion  among 
them  ;  we  find  no  certain  traces  of  dissension  about  points  of 
abstract  doctrine.  As  these  abstract  differences  had  no  per¬ 
ceptible  influence  on  Christian  practice,  the  primitive  Christians 
probably  did  not  even  compare  their  views  on  many  points  of 
modern  controversy,  and  may  have  differed  on  some  minor  top¬ 
ics  without  knowing  it.  Yet  on  some  points  they  differed  and 
discussed ;  but  Paul  dissuades  them  from  indulging  in  “  doubt¬ 
ful  disputations.”* 

Having  thus,  as  we  suppose,  satisfactorily  ascertained,  that  the 
bond  of  union  among  the  apostolic  churches  did  not  consist  in  a 
compact  ecclesiastical  organization  of  the  entire  church  in  any 
nation  or  country  under  one  supreme  judicatory ;  nor  in  the 

#  Rom.  14:  1 :  Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  (who  has  not  fully  ap¬ 
prehended  all  the  Christian  doctrines)  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful 
disputations  [yr}  eig  hiunqLaug  dLuioyiaywv,  without  deciding  on  his 
scruples). 


.‘34 


Dr.  SchmucJcer’s  Appeal. 

organization  of  the  whole  church  on  earth  under  one  visible 
head ,  such  as  the  pope  and  papal  hierarchy  ;  and  finally,  that  it 
did  not  consist  in  absolute  unanimity  of  religious  sentiment ;  it 
remains  for  us  to  inquire  into  the  positive  elements  which  did 
compose  it — whilst  each  congregation  transacted  its  ordinary 
business  of  government  and  discipline  for  itself,  and  constituted 
as  it  were  one  member  of  the  body  of  Christ,  what  were  the 
ties  by  which  these  several  members  were  united  together,  and 
by  which  the  spirit  ol  brotherly  love  was  preserved  among 
them  ? 

We  here  presuppose  the  prevalence  among  the  primitive 
Christians  of  that  unity  of  spirit,  which  gave  life  and  value  to 
all  the  external  forms  of  union.  Without  this,  the  church,  even 
if  externally  bound  together  by  a  bond  of  iron,  would  be  a  life¬ 
less  trunk  destitute  of  that  pervading  spirit  that  gives  interest 
and  animation  to  the  whole.  But  on  this  subject  we  are  not 
permitted  to  cherish  a  moment’s  doubt.  We  are  expressly 
told  by  Luke  in  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles  :*  “  And  the  mul¬ 
titude  of  them  that  believed ,  were  of  one  heart  and,  of  one  soul.” 
Then  it  was  that  the  disciples  continued  “  with  one  accord, 
breaking  bread  from  house  to  house,  and  did  eat  their  meat 
with  gladness  and  with  singleness  of  heart,  praising  God  and 
having  favor  with  the  people.  ”f  It  is  this  unity  of  spirit,  this 
undissembled  brotherly  love,  cherished  in  their  bosoms  and 
manifested  in  their  conduct  towards  each  other,  which  invested 
the  example  ol  the  primitive  church  with  such  an  omnipotence  of 
moral  power,  and  extorted  from  the  surrounding  heathen  them¬ 
selves  the  exclamation  :  “  See  how  these  Christians  love  one 
another.”  But  our  object  at  this  time  is  to  ascertain,  what 
were  the  principal  external  means  of  manifesting  and  perpet¬ 
uating  this  unity  of  spirit  among  the  primitive  Christian  churches. 

I.  The  first  means  of  union  was  entire  unity  of  name ;  that 
is,  the  careful  avoidance  of  all  names,  which  implied  difference 
or  division.  In  the  apostolic  age,  the  followers  of  the  Redeemer 
were  technically  called  Christians,  and  only  Christians.  The 
churches  in  different  places  were  distinguished  by  geographical 
designations,  and  by  these  alone.  We  read  of  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  the  church  at  Corinth,  the  church  at  Rome,  etc. 
but  not  of  the  Pauline  or  Apolline  or  Cephine  church,  nor  of 
a  church  named  after  any  other  person  but  him,  who  bought 


#  Acts  4:  32. 


f  Acts  2:  46. 


35 


Dr.  Schmucker  s  Appeal. 

the  church — not  a  part  of  the  church,  but  the  whole  church, 
with  his  blood.  Let  it  not  be  supposed,  that  this  is  an  unim¬ 
portant  feature  of  Christian  union.  Paul  the  apostle  did  not 
thus  regard  it,  when  he  so  promptly  met  and  repelled  the  at¬ 
tempt  of  those  at  Corinth,  who  adopted  such  sectarian  names, 
saying  “  I  am  of  Paul  and  I  am  of  Apollas  and  I  am  of  Cephas.” 
He  expressly  forbade  their  adoption  of  such  names,  declaring 
that  by  so  doing  they  implied,  that  their  adopted  leaders  had 
died  for  them,  and  that  they  had  been  baptized  into  their  names. 
The  sentiments  of  the  church,  during  the  earlier  centuries,  may 
be  learned  from  the  declaration  of  Lactantius  at  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  the  fourth  century  :  “  The  Montanists,  Novatians,  Val- 
entians — or  whatever  else  they  may  call  themselves,  have  ceas¬ 
ed  to  be  Christians,  because  they  have  renounced  the  name  of 
Christians,  and  called  themselves  by  the  names  of  men.”  (In- 
stit.  div.  1.  IV.  c.  30).  This  estimate  of  the  importance  of 
unity  of  name ,  is  doubtless  overwrought ;  yet  the  influence  of 
different  names  is  far  from  being  unimportant  at  present. 
“  Names  are  things”  said  that  distinguished  and  laborious  ser- 
vant  of  Christ,  the  Rev.  Dr.  A.  Green,  when  on  assuming  the 
editorial  chair  of  “  The  Presbyterian  Magazine,”  he  changed 
its  title  to  Christian  Advocate.  His  reasons  for  this  alteration 
he  thus  assigns:  “We  usually  form  some  judgment  of  a  pub¬ 
lication  from  its  title ;  and  indeed,  it  is  for  this  very  purpose 
that  a  title  is  given.  Now  on  hearing  of  a  Presbyterian  Mag¬ 
azine,  some,  it  appears,  have  set  it  down  at  once  as  a  sectarian 
work,  of  which  the  main  and  ultimate  design  would  be  to  dif¬ 
fuse  and  defend  the  doctrines  and  opinions  which  are  peculiar 
to  the  Presbyterians,  and  on  this  account  they  have  resolved  to 
give  it  no  encouragement.”  What  is  here  acknowledged  of 
the  term  Presbyterian,  is  equally  true  of  every  other  sectarian 
name  of  Christian  churches.  Whilst  it  is  conceded  that  the 
substitution  of  geographical  for  sectarian  names  could  not  re¬ 
move  the  whole  difficulty ;  it  is  equally  certain  that  it  would 
not  be  without  its  influence.  Even  Celsus,  the  bitter  foe  of 
Christians,  when  charging  on  them  as  criminal  their  differences 
on  nonessentials  which  prevailed  among  them  in  his  day,  was 
compelled  to  acknowledge  as  one  bond  of  union  among  them, 
their  unity  of  name.  Thousands  of  enlightened,  true  Christians 
of  different  denominations  differ  only  in  name.  And  thousands 
there  are  among  the  more  ignorant,  who  exhibit  much  acerbity 
against  other  sects  and  prepossessions  for  their  own,  and  yet 


36 


Dr.  Schmuclcer’s  Appeal. 


are  ignorant  of  all  the  points  of  distinction  between  them  ex¬ 
cept  the  name. 

The  second  bond  of  union  among  the  primitive  churches, 
was  unity  of  opinion  on  all  fundamental  doctrines ,  that  is,  the 
profession  of  a  creed  of  fundamentals.  That  the  primitive 
Christians,  notwithstanding  their  minor  differences,  did  agree  on 
all  fundamental  doctrines,  is  evident,  because  they  possessed 
either  the  oral  instruction  of  the  apostles,  or  the  same  sacred 
records  of  them  which  have  produced  such  unity  in  fundamen¬ 
tals  among  modern  Christians.  It  is  presupposed  by  the  apos¬ 
tle  s  injunction  u  earnestly  to  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints  ;”  for,  before  they  could  contend  for  the  faith, 
they  must  have  a  general  understanding  among  them  at  least  as 
to  what  the  fundamentals  of  that  faith  are,  for  they  were  also 
commanded  to  abstain  from  “  doubtful  disputations,”  and  not 
“  t°  judge”  their  brethren  for  minor  differences.  It  is  finally 
proved  by  the  fact,  that  they  required  of  every  candidate  for 
baptism  a  profession  of  his  creed  of  faith  prior  to  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  ordinance  :  “  If  thou  believes?’  (said  Philip  to  the 
eunuch)  u  with  all  thine  heart ,  thou  mayest  be  baptized.  And 
he  answered  and  solid.,  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God.  *  The  custom  of  requiring  of  all  applicants  for  baptism 
a  confession  of  their  faith  in  the  fundamentals  of  the  gospel, 
seems  to  have  been  general  throughout  the  whole  church. 
For  among  the  earliest  documents  of  Christian  antiquity  that 
have  reached  us,  there  is  one  which  by  the  universal  testimony 
of  the  Christian  fathers,  is  an  authentic  collection  of  the  several 
points  of  doctrine  to  which  this  assent  was  required  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  we  mean  the  so  called  Apostles’  Creed. 
This  creed  is  highly  interesting  and  important,  especially  to 
modern  Christians  ;  first,  because  it  shows  what  the  primitive 
church  universally  understood  the  Scriptures  to  teach  ;  and 
secondly,  because  it  incontestibly  establishes  the  fact,  that  the 
primitive  church,  when  guided  by  the  inspired  apostles,  and 
soon  after,  deemed  it  lawful  to  require  unanimity  only  in  fun¬ 
damental  doctrines  in  order  to  the  unity  of  the  church.  This 
creed,  let  it  further  be  remembered,  was  the  only  one  which 
was  adopted  in  the  church  of  Christ  until  the  fourth  century,  in 
which  the  council  of  Nice  adopted  one  of  the  same  import,  and 
of  but  little  greater  length.  Some  small  variations  are  found  in 


*  Acts  8:  37.  See  also  Rom.  12:  6.  2  Tim.  1:  14.  Jude  v.  3. 


37 


Dr.  Schmuckcr’s  Appeal. 

the  earliest  copies,  but  substantially  it  reads  thus  :*  I  believe  in 
God  the  Father  Almighty ,  the  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth  : 

And  in  Jesus  Christ ,  his  only  Son  our  Ford ;  who  was  con¬ 
ceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  suffered 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead  and  buried. ^-The 
third  day  he  rose  from  the  dead,  he  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  Almighty ,  from 
thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 

I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  holy  catholic  or  universal 
church  ,*  the  communion  of  saints  ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ; 
the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting . 

To  this,  some  copies  add  the  sentence  “  descended  into 
hades,  or  the  place  of  departed  spirits  f  but  it  was  not  found  in 

#  The  earliest  copies  of  this  symbol  are  in  the  Latin  language. 
There  are  several  various  readings  extant,  which  probably  originated 
in  different  Western  churches,  which  used  this  symbol.  We  shall 
give  the  symbol,  together  with  the  various  readings  in  parentheses, 
so  that  the  reader  may  at  one  glance  see  the  whole,  and  also  per¬ 
ceive  that  even  with  the  added  variations,  it  was  still  a  creed  which 
all  orthodox  Protestants  can  subscribe  : 

I.  Credo  in  (tinum)  Deum,  Patrem  omnipotentem  creatorem  coeli 
et  terrae  (“  creatorem  coeli  et  ferrae”  defuit  in  orient,  et  Rom.  antiquo 
symbolo  :  in  Aquilejensi  autetn  positum  erat,  “  invisibilem  et  impassi - 
bilem”) 

II.  Et  in  Jesum  Christum  filium  ejus  unicum,  Dominum  nostrum, 
(“  et  in  unum  Dominum  nostrum,  Jesum  Christum,  filium  ejus  uni- 
genitum ,”  ita  addendo  et  transponendo  legit  olitn  Ecclesia  orientalis.) 
Qui  conceptus  est  de  Spiritu  sancto  ;  natus  ex  Maria  virgine  (“qui 
natus  est  de  Spiritu  sancto  ex  Maria  virgine”  communis  olirri  lectio 
erat.)  Passus  sub  Pontio  Pilato,  crucifixus,  mortuus  et  sepultus,  de- 
scendit  ad  inferna  ;  (“crucifixus  sub  Pontio  Pilato  et  sepultus”  sim- 
pliciter  olirri  multi  legebant  ;  Aquilejense  tandem  symbolum  addidit 

descendit  ad  inferna  ;”  ex  quo  symbolo  Sec.  VI.  Romana  ecclesia 
banc  appendicern  suo  symbolo  inseruit)  tertia  die  resurrexit  a  mor- 
tuis  ;  ascendit  ad  coelos  ;  sedet  ad  dextram  Dei  Patris  omnipotentis. 
Inde  venturus  est  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos. 

III.  Credo  in  spintum  sanctum  (“  et  in  spiritum  sanctum”  olim), 
Sanctam  (“  unam”  orientales  addiderunt)  Ecclesiam  Catholicam  ; 
sanctorum  communionem,  (“  catholicam,  ex  sanctorum  communio- 
nem”  ex  Niceno  forsan  symbolo  insertum,  olim  defuit),  Remissionem 
peccatorum  ;  Carnis  (hvjus  symb.  Aquilej.  addidit)  resurrectionem  ; 
et  vitam  aeternam.  Amen,  (“vitam  aeternam”  in  plerisque  olim  sym- 
bolis  desiderabatur).  See  Clemm’s  Einleitung  in  die  Religion  und 
Theologie,  Vol.  IV.  p.  459. 

6 


38 


Dr.  SchmuckeP  s  Appeal. 


the.  creed  of  the  Latin  churches,  until  the  sixth  century.  Here 
then  we  have  the  series  of  doctrines,  the  belief  of  which  was 
the  bond  of  union  in  the  church  of  Christ  during  three  hundred 
years  ;  and  was  regarded  as  sufficient  for  ecclesiastical  union, 
without  any  inquiry  as  to  differences  on  minor  points.  All  who 
adopted  these  doctrines  and  adorned  them  by  a  consistent  walk, 
were  regarded  as  worthy  members  of  the  one,  universal  church 
of  Christ,  were  every  where  admitted  to  sacramental  commun¬ 
ion  by  right.  All  professing  these  doctrines,  and  residing  in 
the  same  place,  were  united  into  one  church,  and  worshipped 
together  ;  and  different  Christian  churches,  occupying  the  same 
geographical  ground,  and  distinguished  from  each  other  by  dif¬ 
ferences  concerning  doctrines  not  contained  in  this  creed,  had 
no  existence  in  the  church  for  several  centuries  :  were  totally 
unknown  during  the  golden  age  of  Christianity.  To  this  sum¬ 
mary  of  doctrine  some  few  articles  were  added  in  after  ages  by 
different  councils,  to  meet  several  fundamental  heresies  which 
arose.  But  the  additions  are  few,  and  generally  composed 
with  studious  brevity.  In  reference  to  these  doctrines,  which 
he  had  just  before  expressed  in  his  own  language,  Irenaeus,  a 
strenuous  defender  of  the  faith  against  various  heretics,  a  disci¬ 
ple  of  Polycarp,  the  friend  of  the  apostle  John,  makes  the  fol¬ 
lowing  remarks  ( which  are  equally  applicable  to  the  several 
orthodox  Protestant  churches  though  they  are  so  lamentably 
divided)  :  “  This  faith  the  church  has  received,  and  though  dis¬ 
persed  over  the  whole  world,  assiduously  preserves  as  if  she  in¬ 
habited  a  single  house  ;  and  believes  in  these  things  as  having 
but  one  heart  and  one  soul  :  and  with  perfect  harmony  pro¬ 
claims,  teaches,  hands  down  these  things,  as  though  she  had 
but  one  mouth.  For  though  there  are  various  and  dissimilar 
languages  in  the  world  ;  yet  the  power  of  the  faith  transmitted 
is  one  and  the  same.  Neither  the  churches  in  Germany ,  nor 
in  Iberia,  (Spain),  nor  among  the  Celtae  (in  France),  nor  in 
the  East,  nor  in  Egypt,  nor  in  Lybia,  nor  in  the  middle  regions 
of  the  world  (Jerusalem  and  the  adjacent  districts)  believe  or 
teach  any  other  doctrines.  But  as  the  sun  is  one  and  the  same 
throughout  the  whole  ;  so  the  preaching  of  the  truth  shines 
every  where,  and  enlightens  all  men,  who  are  willing  to  come 
to  a  knowledge  of  truth.  Nor  will  the  most  powerful  in  speech 
among  the  governors  of  the  churches  say  any  thing  more  than 
these  ;  (for  no  one  can  be  above  his  master)  ;  nor  the  most 
feeble  any  thing  less.  For  as  there  is  but  one  faith,  he  that  is 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal.  39 

able  to  speak  much  cannot  enlarge  ;  nor  he  who  can  say  little 
diminish  it.”# 

In  the  earlier  part  of  the  fourth  century  (A.  D.  325)  the 
Nicene  Creed  was  adopted  in  order  to  exclude  the  Arians  from 
the  church.  It  is  little  else  than  a  repetition  of  the  apostles’ 
creed,  with  several  clauses  referring  to  the  error  of  the  Arians. 
The  synod  of  Constantinople  about  fifty-six  years  afterwards 
(A.  D.  381)  still  further  enlarged  this  summary,  by  the  addi¬ 
tion  of  several  clauses  concerning  the  worship  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  validity  of  baptism,  etc.  This  creed  as  enlarged  by 
the  synod  of  Constantinople,  is  contained  in  the  symbols  of  the 
Lutheran  church  in  Europe,  and  also  in  the  Prayer  Book  of 
our  Protestant  Episcopal  brethren  in  this  country.  It  reads 
thus  : 

“  I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of 
heaven  and  earth  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible. 

“  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,  begotten  of  his  Father  before  all  worlds  ;  God  of  God, 
Light  of  Light,  true  God  of  the  true  God,  begotten  not  made, 
being  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  things 
were  made  ;  who  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation,  pame  down 
from  heaven  and  was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  virgin 
Mary,  and  was  made  man  and  was  crucified  also  for  us  under 
Pontius  Pilate.  He  suffered  and  was  buried,  and  the  third  day 
he  rose  again,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father;  and  he 
shall  come  again  with  glory  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the 
dead  ;  whose  kingdom  shall  have  no  end. 

“  And  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and  Giver  of 
life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  who  with 
the  Father  and  the  Son  together  is  worshipped  and  glorified, 
who  spake  by  the  prophets.  And  I  believe  in  one  catholic 
and  apostolic  church.  I  acknowledge  one  baptism  for  the  re¬ 
mission  of  sins  ;  and  I  look  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and 
the  life  of  the  world  to  come.f  ” 

*  Irenaeus  adv.  haereses,  L.  I.  e.  3.  p.  46.  ed.  Grabe  :  and  Mason’s 
Plea,  p.  41. 

f  The  following  is  the  Greek  original  of  the  JVicene  Creed,  as  pre¬ 
served  in  the  History  of  Socrates,  L.  I.  c.  8.  By  a  comparison  of  it 
with  the  above  version,  the  reader  may  distinguish  the  additions  made 
by  the  council  of  Constantinople. 

UuTTsvofxev  stg  eva  Oeov f  nazEQu  nuvTOKQctzoQa,  navzwv  ogaii av  te  r.cu 


40 


Dr.  Schmucker* s  Appeal. 

These  symbols,  let  it  be  remembered,  we  adduce  not  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  the  doctrines  contained  in  them,  (a  point 
to  be  established  only  by  the  Scriptures)  but  in  order  to  estab¬ 
lish  two  facts  highly  important  to  our  inquiry,  viz.  1)  that  the 
early  Christians  did  require  assent  to  certain  articles  of  Christian 
faith  ;)  and  2)  that  these  articles  to  which  assent  was  required, 
were  only  fundamental  doctrines  and  facts  of  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion. 

It  is  thus  evident  that  unity  of  opinion  on  fundamental  doc¬ 
trines  and  on  those  alone ,  constituted  one  of  the  principal  bonds 
ol  union  among  churches  in  the  early  ages.  It  is  moreover 
clear,  as  the  several  orthodox  protestant  churches  of  our  land 
cordially  embrace  all  the  doctrines  enumerated  by  lrenaeus  and 
the  Apostles’  and  the  Nicene  creeds,  that  they  ought  not  on 
the  principles  of  primitive  Christianity,  to  be  cut  up  into  different 
sects,  but  should  be  united  into  one  universal  church.  But  in¬ 
stead  of  all  the  Protestant  churches  embracing  one  common 
creed  of  fundamentals,  and  holding  it  up  to  the  view  of  the 
world  as  the  symbol  of  their  unity  in  the  faith  as  Christians  did 
in  the  earlier  ages  at  every  case  of  baptism  ;  the  use  of  different 
creeds  naturally  inculcates  the  idea  of  doctrinal  difference  in- 


ctoQa tmp  noil] T)]v.  Kai  tig  era  Kvqiov  Irjcrovv  Xqkjxov ,  tov  vlov  tov 
0tov)  ysvvi]&Evza  ex  tov  llaTQog  [xovoyEvr]}  x ovi  eaxiv  ex  xrjg  ovaiag  tov 
IIuTQog ,  Oeov  ex  Oeov  you  cpiog  ex  cpiaxog ,  Oeov  aXij&ivov  ex  Oeov  aXi]~ 
•&LVOV,  yevvijxXevxa  ov  7roii]&evTcc,  ofuoovaiov  xco  tiutqi ,  8i  ov  xa  navxa 
eyevsTO,  xa  te  ev  xoj  ovQctvco,  xai  xa  ev  xi ;  yi 7,  81  ijfzag  av&Qomovg,  xai 
81a  TT]V  1][IETEQ(XV  OCOTtjQlUV  XaisX&OVTa  XCtU  aUQXOl&EVTa  X(U  EVaV&Qbmi]- 
crctvTa  naxXovxu  xcu  uvacnavxa  xr}  xqiti]  T]/j,£Qa ,  aveX&ovxa  elg.xovg  oi<Qa- 
rovg}  eQ/o^ietov  XQivai  £ oivxag  xai  vexgovg.  Kai  tig  to  ayiov  nveipa. 
The  above  was  the  original  form  of  the  creed,  and  contains  all  that 
catechumens  were  required  to  repeat  as  their  confession.  The  fol¬ 
lowing  clause  was  however  added  by  the  Nicene  fathers,  and  all 
ministers^  were  required  also  to  subscribe  to  it :  Tovg  8e  Xeyovzag  oxi 

1]V  7TOTE  OTl  OVX  1]V ,  Xai  7TQ1JV  yEVVl]\Xr]Vai  OVX  T]V,  xai  bxi  e|  ovx  OVTOJV 
eyevsTo }  ij^  et egag  vnocnaaewg  ij  ovenag  cpacrxovieg  elvai ,  i]  xtkttov f  i] 
xqetctov }  X]  aXXoionov  tov  viov  xov  Oeov ,  avad^e^aTi^ei  ?/  ayiu  xaxXoXixi] 
xai  ajiocnoXixi]  exxXi]cria ,  i.  e.  The  holy,  catholic  and  apostolic  church 
condemns  (the  opinion  of)  those  who  say,  that  there  was  a  time  when 
the  Son  of  God  did  not  exist,  and  that  before  he  was  begotten  he  did 
not  exist,  and  that  he  was  made  out  of  things  that  were  not,  or  who 
say  that  he  is  of  some  other  hypostasis  or  substance,  or  that  he  was 
created,  or  that  he  is  changeable  or  subject  to  variation.  See  Clemm’s 
Einleitung  in  Religion  und  Theologie,  Vol.  IV.  p.  464-5. 


41 


Dr.  Schmucker's  Appeal. 

stead  of  unity  ;  and  their  great  length,  by  bringing  to  light  all 
the  minor  differences,  and  ranking  them  indiscriminately  with 
the  fundamentals,  and  making  them  the  basis  of  separate 
churches,  inevitably  must  tend  to  throw  into  the  shade  our  real 
fundamental  union  and  perpetuate  the  schisms  in  the  body  of 
Christ. 

The  third  bond  of  union  among  the  primitive  Christians, 
was  the  mutual  acknowledgement  of  each  other's  acts  of  disci¬ 
pline.  If  an  individual  was  excommunicated  or  under  censure 
in  one  church,  he  could  not  obtain  admission  into  any  other. 
As  a  security  against  imposition,  it  was  customary  for  persons 
in  good  standing,  when  travelling  into  strange  places,  to  take 
letters  of  introduction,  or  certificates  of  their  good  standing  from 
the  pastor.  When  any  one  was  destitute  of  such  certificate, 
his  application  for  church  privileges  was  always  rejected.  To 
these  letters  Paul  refers,  and  expresses  the  opinion,  that  he 
would  need  no  such  document  among  the  Corinthians,  as  he 
was  well  known  to  them  :  u  Need  we,  as  some  others,  epistles 
of  commendation  to  you,  or  letters  of  commendation  from  you  ? 
Ye  are  our  epistle,  written  in  our  hearts,  known  and  read  of  all 
men.”  *  This  same  custom  was  prescribed  in  the  church  for 
centuries,  and  numerous  synodical  decrees  were  enacted  for  its 
confirmation.  In  the  apostolic  Canons  or  Regulations  we  find 
the  following : 

Canon  12.  Et  x  ig  xb^gixog  r\  \cuxog  dqwQtopevog,  r\xoi  udex- 
xog,  anel&wv  tig  titgunolti,  dsyft]  avev  ygappaxcog  avoxaxixcov, 
aqogifea&a)  xul  d  fts^ccptvog  v.at  d  de%&Hg.”  f  That  this  regu¬ 
lation  prevailed  from  the  very  days  of  the  apostles,  is  highly 
probable,  because,  as  we  have  seen,  Paul  himself  makes  men¬ 
tion  of  letters  of  this  nature.  At  the  oecumenical  or  general 
council  held  at  Nice,  in  the  year  A.  D.  325,  at  which  were 
present  ministers  from  the  greater  part  of  the  Christian  world, 
the  following  resolution,  or  canon,  was  adopted  : 

Resolution  or  Canon  5.  In  regard,  to  those  persons,  wheth¬ 
er  clergymen  or  laymen ,  who  have  been  excommunicated  by  a 
bishop ,  the  existing  rule  is  to  be  retamed,  namely,  that  they 

*  2  Cor.  3:  1—4. 

f  If  any  excommunicated  clergyman,  or  a  layman  who  has  been  ex¬ 
communicated,  or  denied  admission  (as  member  of  the  church),  go  to 
another  city  and  is  received  without  letters  of  recommendation ,  both  he 
who  receives  him,  and  the  person  thus  received  shall  be  excommunicated . 


42 


Dr.  Schmuckcr  s  Appeal. 

shall  not  be  restored  by  any  other  than  by  the  one  who  excom¬ 
municated  them.  Inquiry  ought  however  to  be  instituted , 
whether  their  expulsion  from  the  church  was  not  occasioned  by 
a  contentious  spirit  or  some  other  mean  or  hostile  passion . 
And  in  order  that  this  may  be  properly  done,  there  shall 
annually  be  two  synods  held,  in  each  province,  and  at  these 
meetings  of  the  bishops,  suitable  examinations  shall  be  institu¬ 
ted,  m  order  that  every  person  may  see  the  justice  of  the  ex¬ 
communication  of  those  who  transgressed  against  (the  regula¬ 
tions  of)  the  bishop,  until  the  assemblage  of  bishops  shall,  if 
they  see  fit,  pronounce  a  milder  sentence.  One  of  those  synod¬ 
ical  meetings  shall  be  held  before  the  spring  fast,  the  other  in 
the  fall.  * 

At  the  council  or  synod  of  Antioch,  held  fa  A.  D.  341, 
sixteen  years  after  that  at  Nice,  a  resolution  of  just  the  same 
import  was  passed : 

Resolution  6.  If  any  person  has  been  excommunicated  by 
his  bishop,  he  shall  not  be  restored  by  any  one  else  than  that 
bishop  himself \  unless  his  case  has  been  examined  by  the  council 
or  synod ,  and  a  milder  sentence  been  obtained.  This  regula¬ 
tion  shall  be  applicable  alike  to  laymen,  presbyters,  deacons, 
and  all  the  clergy. f 

From  these  testimonies  it  is  abundantly  evident,  that  the 
churches  in  the  earlier  centuries  fully  acknowledged  the  disci¬ 
plinarian  acts  of  each  other :  nor  is  it  difficult  to  perceive  the 
salutary  influence  which  would  result  from  such  mutual  marks 
of  confidence.  Carried  to  a  reasonable  extent,  they  would  give 
an  efficacy  to  church  discipline,  which  it  has  almost  entirely 
lost  in  modern  times.  This  regulation  would  cherish  brotherly 
love  between  the  churches,  and  tend  to  give  visibility  to  their 
union. 

The  fourth  bond  of  union  among  the  primitive  Christians 
was  sacramental  and  ministerial  communion.  This  feature  is 
one  of  very  extensive  application  and  most  salutary  influence 
on  the  different  portions  of  the  Christian  church.  The  apostle 
Paul  may  be  regarded  as  inculcating  it  in  his  declaration  to  the 
Christians  at  Corinth  ;  “  For  we  being  many ,  are  one  bread  and 
one  body  (that  is,  you  at  Corinth,  I  and  my  fellow-Christians 
here  at  Ephesus,  from  the  midst  of  whom  I  am  addressing  you,  are 

#  Fuch’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenversammlungen,  Vol.  I.  p.  394. 
f  Ibid.  Vol.  II.  p.  62. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


43 


one  body)  ;  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread. 
Accordingly  we  find,  that  in  the  earliest  period  to  which  the 
records  of  Christian  antiquity  extend,  every  church  received  to 
communion  as  fully  as  its  own  members,  the  members  and  min¬ 
isters  of  every  other  acknowledged  Christian  church  on  earth, 
upon  evidence  of  their  good  standing.  Strangers  coming  from 
other  churches  were  required  to  present  letters  or  certificates  of 
their  standing  ;  and  all  Christians,  whether  clergy  or  laymen, 
regarded  it  as  a  duty  to  commune  with  the  members  of  any 
other  church,  at  which  they  happened  to  be  present.  It  was  a 
common  custom  for  Christians  in  the  earlier  centuries,  when 
travelling,  to  take  such  certificates  of  membership  with  them ; 
and  when  stopping  in  a  city  or  town,  they  sought  out  the 
Christians  living  in  it,  and  received  from  them  every  mark  of 
attention  and  friendship.  These  letters  were  termed  literae 
formatae  or  ygaupaza  ztivncofuia,  as  they  were  of  a  particular 
form  to  prevent  counterfeits ;  they  were  sometimes  denominat¬ 
ed  epistolae  communicatoriae,  or  ygcppuzu  xoivcovr/.u,  letters  of 
ecclesiastical  communion  or  fellowship.! 

The  broad  principle  of  scriptural  Christian  communion  extends 
indiscriminately  to  all  whom  we  regard  as  true  disciples  of 
Christ.  Thus  it  is  laid  down  by  Peter  in  his  vindication,  when 
censured  for  communing  with  Gentile  converts  :  “  thou  wentest 
in  to  men  uncircumcised  and  didst  eat  with  them.”  J  His  ar¬ 
gument  is  thus  summed  up,  after  he  had  detailed  the  facts  on 
which  it  rested  ;  “  Forasmuch  as  God  gave  them  the  like  gift , 
as  he  did  unto  us,  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ; 
what  was  I,  that  1  could  withstand  God  7” 

It  is  equally  certain  that  ministerial  communion  and  official 
acknowledgement  pervaded  the  church  in  her  primitive  ages. 
The  regulations  made  by  different  synods  or  councils  to  prevent 
the  abuse  of  this  privilege  incontestibly  establish  its  existence. 
But  even  in  the  apostolic  canons  we  find  the  following  : 

Canon  32.  Mr\dtvu  zcov  gevwv  Itugxotkov  r\  ng£G{3vzegcov  rj 
chaxovMv  dvev  ovGzazixcov  npoode/todca '  xca  hucpegopevoiv 
avccov  dvaxgiveo&ojGciv  *  xgu  zjpfv  ojoi  afjgvxeg  zrjg  evotfiezug 
TigoGdeyfGxtoiGav  *  ei  de  prjys,  zrjv  ygecav  ctvzoig  sTuyogr]yriGot.vztgf 

*  1  Cor.  10:  17. 

t  Neander’s  Allgemeine  Geschichte  der  Christlichen  Religion  und 
Kirche,  Vol.  I.  p.  320. 

t  Acts  12:  3,  17. 


44  Dr.  Schmucker' s  Appeal. 

tiQ  xoivcovuxp  auiovg  f. it]  nyoods§eo{}6  '  noXXa  yap  holt  a  gvvolq- 
■naytjv  yivticu.* 

At  the  synod  of  Carthage,  held  A.  D.  348  or  349,  it  was 
resolved  that  u  no  one  shall  receive  a  minister  without  letters 
from  his  bishop.” j- 

It  furnished  with  suitable  testimonials  a  minister  in  one  part 
of  the  church  was  acknowledged  as  such  in  every  other,  and  if 
present  at  public  worship  was  ordinarily  invited  to  take  part  in 
conducting  the  services. 

The  tendency  which  such  free  sacramental  intercommunion 
as  opportunity  offers  with  all  over  the  whole  earth  who  present 
credible  evidence  of  genuine  discipleship,  cannot  readily  be  cal¬ 
culated.  The  views  and  principles  and  feelings  which  it  pre¬ 
supposes,  constitute  important  elements  of  the  millennial  union  of 
the  future  church.  God  grant  their  speedy  dissemination  over 
the  church  universal  1 

fifth  means  by  which  unity  was  promoted  and  preserv¬ 
ed  among  the  primitive  Christians,  was  occasional  epistolary 
communication.  Of  this  fact  we  have  abundant  proof  in  the 
epistles  of  Clement,  Polycarp,  Ignatius  and  Barnabas,  who  are 
termed  apostolic  fathers,  because  they  lived  partly  in  the  apos¬ 
tolic  age.  Some  of  these  epistles  are  doubtless  spurious  and  all 
corrupted,  yet  enough  remains  to  answer  the  purpose  for  which 
we  adduce  them  to  show  that  they  were  letters  written  to  dif¬ 
ferent  churches  to  promote  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  union 
among  them.  The  age  immediately  subsequent  to  the  apos¬ 
tles  furnishes  numerous  instances  of  such  epistolary  communion 
of  the  churches.  From  Eusebius  we  learn  that  Dionysius  of 
Corinth  about  the  year  A.  D.  160,  sent  abroad  numerous  epis¬ 
tles  of  this  kind.  “  And  first  (says  Eusebius*)  we  must  speak 

#  “  Let  no  one  receive  strange  (foreign)  bishops  or  presbyters  or 
deacons  without  letters  of  recommendation  ;  and  the  letters  that  are 
bi ought  must  be  examined.  If  they  prove  to  be  pious  preachers 
(preachers  of  piety)  let  them  be  received:  but  if  they  do  not;  their 
immediate  necessities  should  be  supplied,  but  they  must  not  be  re¬ 
ceived  into  communion.  For  many  instances  of  fraud  have  occurred 

in  this  matter.”  Koepler’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater,  Vol.  IV.  p. 
240» 

f  Fuch’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenversammlungen,  Vol.  III.  p.  35. 

*  Eusebius,  IV.  ch.  23.  Kal  tiqmtov  ye  negl  JlovvoIov  cponeov' 
ort  T£  T?jg  iv  KoqIv&lo  naQowiag  tov  % ijg  imoxonij?  iyxexelqLoxo  -&qovov, 
xtu  &;$  tijg  iv&sov  (fdonoviag  ov  fxovov  %  dig  vn  axrtov,  aXX  ydy  xcu  t  oig 


Ur.  Schmucker’ s  Appeal. 


45 


of  Dionysius,  who  was  appointed  over  the  church  at  Corinth, 
and  imparted  freely  not  only  to  his  own  people,  but  to  others 
abroad  also,  the  blessings  of  his  divine  labors.  But  he  was  most 
useful  to  all  in  the  general  epistles  which  he  addressed  to  the 
churches.  One  of  them  is  addressed  to  the  Lacedaemonians, 
and  contains  instructions  in  the  true  religion,  and  inculcates 
peace  and  unity :  one  also  to  the  Athenians,  exciting  them  to 
the  faith  and  the  life  prescribed  by  the  gospel,  from  which  he 
shows  that  they  had  swerved,  so  that  they  had  nearly  fallen 
from  the  truth  since  the  martyrdom  of  Publius,  their  leader 
(bishop)  which  happened  in  the  persecutions  of  those  times. 
The  necessity  of  such  letters  as  means  of  Christian  instruction, 
is  at  present  superseded  by  the  universal  dissemination  of  the 
holy  Scriptures ;  yet  as  bonds  of  Christian  union,  they  may  still 
be  occasionally  resorted  to  with  the  happiest  results,  especially 
between  Christians  of  distant  countries  as  a  substitute  for  per¬ 
sonal  intercourse.  We  cannot  but  commend  the  epistle  of  the 
venerable  Dr.  Planck  of  Germany,  to  the  General  Synod  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  in  this  country,  as  also  the  epistles  of  the 
Congregational  and  Presbyterian  churches  of  the  United  States 
to  the  Christians  of  the  same  denomination  in  Europe.  Still, 
all  these  epistles  bear  on  their  front  the  badge  of  schism ;  for 
they  were  addressed  by  particular  sects  of  Christians,  not  to 
Christians  of  another  country  generally,  but  only  to  Christians 
of  the  same  sect.  They  are  epistles  from  followers  of  Paul  and 
Apollos  in  one  land,  to  disciples  of  the  same  leaders  in  another. 
So  completely  has  sectarianism  separated  the  several  denomina¬ 
tions,  that  by  many  it  is  regarded  as  immodest  to  address  any 
others  than  those  of  their  own  sect.  Instead  of  that  community 
of  interest  between  all  the  members  of  Christ’s  body,  which  the 
apostle  inculcates,  “  so  that  all  the  members  should  have  the 
same  care  one  for  another,  and  whether  one  member  suffer,  all 
the  members  suffer  with  it  sectarianism  has  taught  each 

dm  t ijg  aXXodctnijg  dcp&ovwg  sy.oivwvsi  *  /Q7](jl}iWTmov  caiacnv  eavTov 
yaxHaiag,  iv  cdg  vtieivtiovio  xa&oXiy.cug  ngog  tug  txxh](nc(g  snKTToXaig  * 
(ov  itJTiv,  ij  fAEV  TiQog  A unsdaifiovlovg,  c()d'odoAug  xca ^y^Tiyrj,  sigijVTjg  ts 
y.at  h'wascog  vtto&etix?}'  i)  ds  nqog  A£h]vcdovg;  difysoTiyi]  tiktisws  xctl 
Ttjg  xvtTaio  EvayysXlov  noXiTeiag  ’  ijg  oXiyo)^?jadvTag  iXty/Ei,  log  av  [mx- 
qov  8uv  anoaiocvTug  tov  Xoyov ,  ovtieq  t ov  tcqoegtojxu  avTcov  Hov- 
nliov  fj,DCQTVQTj(TDu  jcccioc  Toiig  xoT£  (rvve{j)j  Sicoyyovg. 

*  1  Cor.  12:  26. 


7 


46 


Dr .  Sckmucker  s  Appeal. 

member  of  the  body  to  stand  aloof  from  the  others,  has  taught 
them  by  no  means  to  “  have  the  same  care  one  for  another  !  !” 

_  The  last  bond  of  primitive  union  was  the  occasional  consulta¬ 
tion  of  different  churches  by  representatives  convened  in  a  coun¬ 
cil  or  synod.  This  means  ol  prolonging  unity  among  Christians 
was  for  several  reasons  not  very  frequently  resorted  to  in  the 
apostolic  age.  The  continual  journies  of  the  apostles  tended 
in  a  measure  to  answer  the  same  purpose.  How  often  coun¬ 
cils  for  mutual  consultation  were  held,  prior  to  that  at  Rome, 
mentioned  by  Eusebius,  we  know  not  ;  but  the  principle  being 
sanctioned  by  the  apostolic  example,  Acts  xv.,  the  church 
should  apply  it  just  as  extensively  as  is  found  to  promote  the 
spirit  of  union,  brotherly  love  and  order  among  Christians.  As 
however  neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  have  appointed  such 
bodies  as  courts  of  j  udicature  or  appeal ;  it  is  probable,  that 
whatever  business  of  this  kind  is  referred  to  the  more  extensive 
judicatories,  their  decisions  should  be  regarded  mainly  as  advi- 
sory,  and  should  have  no  other  force  than  results  from  the  evi¬ 
dence  alleged  in  support  of  the  opinion  given.  The  danger 
of  such  General  Synods,  Assemblies,  or  Conventions,  arises  not 
so  much  from  the  number  of  churches  represented  in  them, 
as  from  the  great  number  of  the  delegates,  from  the  degree  of 
power  conferred  on  them  by  the  elementary  members  of  Christ’s 
body,  the  individual  churches  ;  and  from  the  amount  of  actual 
business  which  is  transferred  from  the  churches  in  their  elemen¬ 
tary  capacity ,  to  these  judicatories.  If  the  delegation  be  small, 
so  that  the  whole  body  will  not  be  unwieldy ;  if  the  business 
transacted  be  not  such  as  properly  belongs  to  the  individual 
churches  ;  if  it  relate  only  to  the  general  interests  of  the  church  ; 
and  if  the  powers  of  the  body  be  only  advisory  ;  this  principle 
of  mutual  consultation  might  to  a  certain  extent  be  safely  em¬ 
ployed. 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  principles,  the  writer  regarded 
with  high  approbation  the  proposition  for  a  re-organization  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  by  making 
it  an  Advisory  Council.  That  measure,  which  was  proposed 
in  the  Biblical  Repertory  of  1832,  was  by  uncontradicted  fame 
attributed  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander,  and  contains  a  distinguish¬ 
ed  specimen  of  practical  wisdom,  and  enlarged  views  of  the 
principles  of  our  holy  religion,  in  their  application  to  ecclesias¬ 
tical  jurisprudence.  On  precisely  the  same  general  principles, 
j  1  e  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country  was 


47 


Dr.  SchmucJcer’s  Appeal. 

founded  seventeen  years  ago,  and  of  its  salutary  and  safe  prac¬ 
tical  operation,  scarcely  a  dissenting  voice  is  heard  among  the 
enlightened  friends  of  evangelical  piety  among  us. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  faithfully  to  exhibit  the  features 
which  constituted  the  unity  of  the  primitive  church.  Let  us 
now  pursue  the  subject  further,  deduce  the  principles  furnished 
by  these  facts,  and  finally  develope  a  plan  to  restore  the  unity 
of  the  body  of  Christ  on  the  same  apostolic  principles,  which 
constituted  it  in  the  primitive  ages ;  a  consummation  which 
ought  to  be  devoutly  wished  for  by  every  disciple  of  that  Sav¬ 
iour  who  so  earnestly  prayed  for  the  union  of  his  followers  ; 
an  object  so  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  nobleminded  Calvin,  that 
to  accomplish  it  he  says  :  “  As  to  myself,  were  I  likely  to  be 

of  any  service ,  1  would  not  hesitate ,  were  it  necessary ,  for  such 
a  purpose  to  cross  ten  seas.”  (Quantum  ad  me  attinet,  siquis 
mei  usus  fore  videbitur,  ne  decern  quidem  maria,  si  opus  sit,  ob 
earn  rem  trajicere  pigeat.  Calvin’s  Epist.  p.  61). 


CHAPTER  III. 

Whilst  contemplating  the  church  ol  the  Redeemer  Irom 
the  time  when  the  Master  tabernacled  in  the  flesh,  to  the 
present  day,  we  are,  as  was  formerly  remarked,  forcibly  struck 
by  the  contrast  between  her  visible  unity  in  the  earlier  centu¬ 
ries,  and  the  multitude  of  her  divisions  since  the  Reformation. 
During  the  former  period,  the  great  mass  of  the  orthodox  Chris¬ 
tian  community  on  earth,  constituted  one  universal  or  catholic 
church  ;  excepting  only  several  comparatively  small  clusters  of 
Christians,  such  as  the  Donatists  and  Novatians.  Now,  the 
purest  portion  of  God’s  heritage,  the  Protestant  world,  is  cleft 
into  a  multitude  of  parties,  each  claiming  superior  purity,  each 
maintaining  a  separate  ecclesiastical  organization.  The  separa¬ 
tion  of  the  Protestants  from  the  Papal  hierarchy,  was  an  insu¬ 
perable  duty ;  for  Rome  had  poisoned  the  fountains  of  truth  by 
her  corruptions,  and  death  or  a  refusal  to  drink  from  her  cup 
was  the  only  alternative.  “  Babylon,  the  great,  was  fallen” 


48 


Dr.  Schmiicker’s  Appeal. 


under  the  divine  displeasure,  and  “  the  voice  from  heaven” 
must  he  obeyed,  “  Come  out  of  her,  my  people,  that  ye  be  not 
partakers  of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  her  plagues.”* 
But  that  the  Protestants  themselves  should  afterwards  separate 
from  each  other  ;  should  break  communion  with  those  whom 
they  professed  to  regard  as  brethren,  was  inconsistent  with  the 
practice  of  the  apostolic  church,  and,  at  least  in  the  extent  to 
which  it  was  carried,  and  the  principle  on  which  it  was  based, 
detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the  Christian  cause.  But  it  must  not 
be  forgotten,  that  the  position  thus  assumed,  was,  so  far  as  its  ulte¬ 
rior  results  are  concerned,  rather  adventitious  than  designed.  The 
Protestant  churches  struggled  into  existence  amid  circumstances  of 
excitement,  oppression  and  agitation  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical. 
This  state  of  things  was  highly  unpropitious  alike  to  the  forma¬ 
tion  of  perfect  views  of  church  polity  in  theory,  and  their  intro¬ 
duction  in  practice.  The  Reformation  itself,  could  not  have 
been  effected,  unless  aided  by  the  civil  arm,  which  protected 
its  agents  from  papal  vengeance.  A  total  exclusion  of  the  civil 
authorities  from  ecclesiastical  action,  would  probably  have  blast¬ 
ed  the  Reformation  in  the  bud  ;  even  if  the  views  of  the  earlier 
Reformers  had  led  them  to  desire  such  exclusion.  Owing 
partly  to  these  circumstances,  and  partly  to  the  remains  of  pa¬ 
pal  bigotry  still  adhering  to  them,  the  Protestants  in  different 
countries  successively  assumed  organizations  not  only  entirely 
separate,  as  in  some  respects  they  properly  might  be  ;  but  hav¬ 
ing  little  reference  to  the  church  as  a  whole,  and  calculated  to 
cast  into  the  back  ground  the  fundamental  unity  which  actually 
exists  between  them.  Without  entering  into  a  detail  of  their 
origin,  it  may  not  be  amiss,  in  view  of  the  popular  reader,  to 
advert  to  the  successive  dates  of  their  formation. 

The  Lutheran  church  grew  up  with  the  Reformation  itself, 
which  commenced  in  1517.  The  early  history  of  the  one,  in 
Germany,  Denmark,  Prussia,  Sweden,  and  Norway  is  also  the 
history  of  the  other.  The  commencement  of  the  church  may 
be  dated,  either  from  1520,  when  Luther  renounced  his  allegi¬ 
ance  to  popery,  by  committing  the  emblems  of  papal  powrnr, 
the  bulls  and  canons,  to  the  flames  ;  or,  more  properly  it  may 
be  fixed  at  1 530,  when  the  reformers  presented  their  confession 
of  faith,  to  the  emperor  and  diet  at  Augsburg,  it  is  to  be  re¬ 
gretted,  that  this  eldest  branch  of  the  Protestant  church  adopt- 


*  Rev.  18:  3,  4. 


Dr.  Schmucker1  s  Appeal. 


49 


ed  a  sectarian  name;  thus  fostering  excessive  reverence  for  the 
opinions  of  an  illustrious  yet  fallible  servant  of  God,  erecting 
them  into  a  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  making  his  doctrinal  at¬ 
tainments  the  ne  plus  ultra  of  ecclesiastical  reformation.  For, 
the  church  being  termed  Lutheran,  it  was  a  very  popular  argu¬ 
ment,  which  bigots  did  not  fail  to  wield,  that  lie  who  rejected 
any  of  Luther’s  opinions  was  untrue  to  the  church  which  bore 
his  name.  Had  some  generic  designation  been  assumed,  and 
only  generic  principles  been  adopted  for  the  organization  of  the 
church,  the  work  of  reformation  might  have  been  gradually  ad¬ 
vanced  until  every  vestige  of  popery  was  obliterated,  without 
hurling  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  at  any  one.  Yet,  it  is  but 
justice  to  that  distinguished  servant  of  God  to  add,  that  the 
name  was  given  to  his  followers  by  his  enemies  from  derision, 
whilst  he  protested  against  it  with  his  accustomed  energy.  “  1 
beg  (said  he)  that  men  would  abstain  from  using  my  name, 
and  would  call  themselves  not  Lutherans,  but  Christians. 
What  is  Luther  ?  My  doctrine  is  not  mine.  Neither  was  I 
crucified  for  any  one.  Paul  would  not  suffer  Christians  to  be 
called  after  him,  nor  Peter,  but  after  Christ  (1  Cor.  3:  4,  5). 
Why  should  it  happen  to  me,  poor,  corruptible  food  of  worms, 
that  the  disciples  of  Christ  should  be  called  after  my  abomina¬ 
ble  name  ?  Be  it  not  so,  beloved  friends,  but  let  us  extirpate 
party  names,  and  be  called  Christians  ;  for  it  is  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  that  we  teach.” 

The  German  Reformed  church  was  next  established  through 
the  agency  of  that  distinguished  servant  of  Christ,  Zwingli.  He 
commenced  his  public  efforts  as  a  Reformer  in  1519,  by  oppos¬ 
ing  the  sale  of  indulgences  by  the  Romish  agent  Sampson.  In 
1531  a  permanent  religious  peace  was  made  in  Switzerland, 
securing  mutual  toleration  both  to  the  reformed  and  to  the 
Catholics,  and  thus  stability  was  given  to  this  portion  of  the 
Protestant  Church. 

The  Episcopal  church  may  be  dated  from  1533,  when 
Henry  VIII.  renounced  his  allegiance  to  the  pope,  and  separated 
the  church  of  England  from  the  papal  see  ;  although  the  work  of 
actually  reforming  this  church  was  accomplished  at  a  later  date. 

The  Baptist  church  may  be  referred  to  the  year  1535, 
when  Menno  Simon  commenced  his  career;  or  to  1536, 
when  it  was  regularly  organized. 

The  Calvinistic  or  Presbyterian  church ,  using  the  phrase  to 
designate  the  church  established  by  Calvin  himself,  may  be 


50 


Dr.  SchmuckeC  s  Appeal. 

dated  at  1536,  when  he  was  appointed  minister  at  Geneva,  or 
more  properly  at  1542  when  he  established  the  presbytery  there. 

The  Presbyterian  church  in  England,  Scotland  and  America, 
may  be  regarded  as  a  continuation  of  the  church,  founded  by 
this  eminent  servant  of  God. 

The  Congregational  or  Independent  church  may  be  dated 
from  1616,  when  the  first  Independent  or  Congregational  church 
was  organized  in  England  by  Mr.  Jacob. 

The  modem  Moravian  church  or  church  of  the  United 
Brethren ,  may  be  regarded  as  originating  in  1727,  when  Count 
Zinzendorf  and  Baron  Waterville  were  selected  as  directors  of 
the  fraternity.  Both  the  Moravian  and  the  Baptist  churches 
trace  their  origin  to  Christian  communities  prior  to  the  Reforma¬ 
tion.  But  our  design  is  merely  to  enumerate  the  dates  of  the 
existing  most  extensive  Protestant  denominations;  in  doing 
which,  we  have  selected  the  earliest  periods,  in  order  that  read¬ 
ers  of  no  particular  church  might  dissent  or  feel  aggrieved. 

The  origin  of  the  Methodist  church  may  be  traced  to  1729, 
when  its  honored  founder  Mr.  John  Wesley,  and  Mr.  Morgan 
commenced  their  meetings  for  the  practical  study  of  the  sacred 
volume. 

Numerous  other  denominations  of  minor  extent,  are  found 
among  us,  whose  principles  coincide  more  or  less  with  those  of 
the  churches  here  specified.  All  these  together  constitute  the 
aggregate  Protestant  church,  and  are  the  great  mass  of  the  visi¬ 
ble  church  of  the  Redeemer,  engaged  in  promoting  his  mediato¬ 
rial  reign  on  earth,  and  owned  by  his  Spirit’s  blessing. 

Causes  of  sectarian  strife  between  the  different  branches  of  the 

Protestant  church. 

In  continental  Europe  the  sectarian  principle  is  not  exhibited 
in  its  full  development.  There,  either  the  Lutheran  or  Re¬ 
formed  church,  and  in  some  instances  both  are  established  by 
law ;  and  the  number  of  dissenters,  if  any  exist,  is  very  small. 
In  England,  where  a  greater  amount  of  liberty  is  enjoyed,  and 
the  press  is  unshackled,  dissenters  from  the  established  church 
are  far  more  numerous.  But  it  is  only  in  these  United  States, 
where  Christianity  has  been  divorced  from  the  civil  government, 
and  restored  to  its  primitive  dependence  on  its  own  moral  power, 
that  all  sects  are  on  perfect  equality,  and  the  natural  tendency 
of  sectarianism  is  witnessed  in  its  full  latitude.  The  separation 
between  church  and  state  is  worthy  of  all  praise,  and  demands 


51 


Dr.  SchmucJccr  s  Appeal. 

our  warmest  gratitude  to  Heaven.  It  has  restored  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Protestant  church  to  the  original  advantages  of  the  golden 
age  of  Christianity  in  the  apostolic  days.  In  this  land  of  refuge 
for  oppressed  Europe,  God  has  placed  his  people  in  circumstan¬ 
ces  most  auspicious  for  the  gradual  “  perfecting  ”  of  his  visible 
kingdom.  Here  we  are  enabled,  unencumbered  by  entangling 
alliances  with  civil  government,  to  review  the  history  of  the 
Redeemer’s  kingdom  for  eighteen  hundred  years,  to  trace  the 
rise  and  progress  of  error  in  all  its  forms,  to  witness  the  effects 
of  every  different  measure,  and  by  a  species  of  experimental 
eclecticism,  rejecting  every  thing  injurious,  to  combine  all  that 
has  proved  advantageous,  and  incorporate  it  in  the  structure  and 
relations  of  the  Protestant  church.  And  has  not  God,  in  his 
providence  called  us  to  this  work  ?  Has  he  not,  by  our  pecu¬ 
liar  situation  imposed  on  us  this  obligation  ?  Ought  not  every 
man,  be  he  minister  or  layman,  who  wields  any  influence  in  any 
Christian  denomination,  strive  to  rise  to  the  level  of  this  sublime 
undertaking,  and  inquire  :  Whence  originates  the  strife  among 
the  different  branches  of  the  Protestant  church ;  and  how  may 
their  union  on  apostolic  principles  be  most  successfully  effected  ? 
Among  the  causes  of  this  strife  we  may  enumerate  the  following : 

1.  The  absence  of  any  visible  bond ,  or  indication  of  union, 
between  the  different  churches  in  any  city ,  town  or  neighbor¬ 
hood,  ivhilst  each  of  them  is  connected,  to  other  churches  else¬ 
where  of  their  own  denomination.  This  circumstance  constant¬ 
ly  cherishes  the  unfriendly  conviction,  that  each  church  prefers 
other  distant  churches  to  their  own  neighboring  brethren.  If 
the  churches  were  all  independent,  having  no  closer  connexion 
with  any  others  abroad,  than  with  their  neighbors  at  home, 
there  would  be  less  occasion  for  this  feeling.  No  bond  of  out¬ 
ward  union  at  all,  would  be  more  conducive  to  brotherly  love 
among  neighbors,  than  a  bond  which  excludes  those  around, 
us  and  unites  us  to  others  afar  off.  The  effect  of  this  stimulant 
to  apathy  or  disregard  between  neighboring  disciples  of  the 
same  Saviour  is  witnessed  in  our  cities,  which  contain  several 
churches  of  the  same  denomination,  united  by  a  common  con¬ 
fession  and  by  their  Synodical  or  Presbyterial  relations.  How 
much  nearer  do  the  churches  of  the  same  denomination  feel  to 
each  other,  than  to  other  sects  not  thus  connected,  though  equal¬ 
ly  and  sometimes  more  contiguous  ! 

•2.  The. next  cause  of  strife  among  churches  is  their  separate 
organization  on  the  ground  of  doctrinal  diversity.  Separate 


52 


Dr.  Schmuclctr' s  Appeal. 


organization  becomes  necessary  in  any  association  whose  mem¬ 
bers  are  numerous,  and  spread  over  a  large  extent  of  country. 
This  is  no  less  the  case  in  church  than  in  state.  But  the  most 
natural  ground  of  division  among  those  professedly  belonging  to 
the  same  great  family,  and  aiming  at  the  same  ends,  is  geographi¬ 
cal  proximity  ;  as  is  seen  in  the  division  of  our  common  country 
into  States  and  these  again  into  counties,  and  as  existed  in  the 
Christian  church  in  the  apostolic  age.  But  when  the  division  is 
made  according  to  a  principle  totally  different  from  this,  when 
it  is  actually  made  on  the  ground  of  difference  between  certain 
portions  of  this  common  family  ;  it  constantly  holds  up  to  view 
not  only  the  existence  of  some  difference,  but  also  the  fact,  that 
this  difference  is  so  important,  as  to  require  those  entertaining 
it  to  separate  from  one  another.  Now  as  of  two  conflicting 
opinions  only  one  can  be  true  ;  it  also  implies,  that  each  party 
regards  the  other  as  in  important  error,  and  that  itself  professes 
superior  purity.  This  is  virtually  judging  our  brother,  and  per¬ 
petuating  the  recollection  of  our  judgment  by  founding  on  it  a 
peculiarity  in  the  structure  of  our  ecclesiastical  organization. 
This  circumstance  is  obviously  calculated  to  beget  unfriendly 
feelings,  and  to  cherish  bigotry  ;  and  its  effect  will  be  propor¬ 
tioned  to  the  density  and  exclusiveness  of  the  organization  based 
on  it.  In  the  primitive  church,  when  no  different  denomina¬ 
tions  of  Christians  existed,  but  all  professors  of  Christianity,  of 
contiguous  residence,  whether  they  entirely  agreed  in  opinion 
or  not,  belonged  to  the  same  church  ;  the  bigotry  and  pride  of 
the  human  heart  found  food  only  in  the  separate  interests  of 
neighboring  churches  occupying  different  ground.  But  to  this 
is  now  unhappily  added  the  conflict  of  interests  resulting  from 
the  occupancy  of  the  same  ground  by  two  churches,  as  also  the 
conflicting  interests  of  separate  extended  ecclesiastical  organiza¬ 
tions,  aiming  to  occupy  the  same  location. 

3.  The  third  source  of  sectarian  strife,  may  be  found  in  the 
use  of  trans fundamental  creeds .*  We  have  already  seen  that 
creeds  properly  constructed  are  useful  in  the  church.  We  be¬ 
lieve  it  may  easily  be  established,  that  either  in  written  or  oral 
form  they  are  essential.  They  existed  in  the  primitive  church 
in  the  latter  form,  and  were  productive  of  good  and  only  good. 
They  were  soon  reduced  to  writing  in  the  so-called  Apostles’ 

*  By  transfundamental  creeds  we  would  designate  those  creeds 
which  embody  not  only  the  undisputed  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but 
also  the  sectarian  peculiarities  of  some  particular  denomination. 


53 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

creed,  and  served  as  a  bond  of  union  during  the  first  four  cen- 
tuiies  of  the  church,  among  all  who  held  the  fundamentals  of 
truth.  But  at  that  time  creeds  were  confined  to  fundamentals. 
Neither  the  Apostles’  nor  the  Nicene  creed  amounts  to  more 
than  a  single  octavo  page ;  and  to  the  whole  of  the  former  and 
most  of  the  latter  all  the  different  orthodox  churches  of  the 
present  day  could  subscribe.  That  the  brevity  of  these  creeds 
did  not  anse  from  the  absence  of  diversity  of  views  is  certain. 
It  has  been  proved  in  a  former  part  of  this  Appeal,  that  there 
did  exist  differences  of  opinion,  even  in  the  apostolic  age,  on 
some  points,  regarded  by  us  as  highly  important.  To  that  evi¬ 
dence,  fully  satisfactory  because  derived  from  God’s  infallible 
word,  we  would  here  subjoin  a  highly  important  passage  from 
Origen,  to  prove  that  such  diversities  of  opinion  continued  to 
characterize  the  church  from  that  day  till  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  at  which  time  he  wrote.  The  apostolic  fathers 
also,  would  afford  us  important  testimony  on  this  point.  Their 
writings  have,  indeed,  reached  us  in  a  corrupted  state  ;  yet 
enough  remains  fully  to  answer  our  purpose  ;  for  the  differen¬ 
ces  which  they  endeavor  to  allay  must  have  existed.  We  shall, 
however,  confine  ourselves  to  the  passage  from  Origen,  which  we 
believe  has  not  before  been  presented  to  the  American  public. 
Origen,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  was  the  most  learned  Christian 
writer  who  had  appeared  from  the  time  of  the  apostles.  He 
was  born  but  eighty-five  years  after  St.  John’s  death,  and  there¬ 
fore  may  have  seen  persons  who  lived  in  the  apostolic  age. 
The  infidel  Celsus  had  asserted,  that  in  the  beginning,  when 
Christians  were  few  in  number,  there  was  unanimity  on  all 
points,  but  that  in  his  day,  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century 
(A.  D.  176),  they  differed  on  many  subjects.  The  followino-  is 
Origen’s  reply :  “  But  he  (Celsus)  also  asserts,  that  they  (the 
primitive  Christians)  all  agreed  in  their  opinions ;  not  observing 
that  from  the  beginning  there  were  different  opinions  among  be¬ 
lievers  (Christians)  as  to  the  selection  of  the  books  to  be  re¬ 
garded  as  divine.  Moreover,  whilst  the  apostles  were  yet 
preaching,  and  those  who  were  eye-witnesses  were  teaching  the 
things  which  they  had  learned  of  Jesus,  there  was  not  a  tittle 
dispute  among  the  Jewish  believers,  concerning  those  gentiles 
who  embraced  the  Christian  doctrines,  whether  it  was  their  du¬ 
ty  to  observe  the  Jewish  rites  ;  or  whether  the  burden  of  clean 
and  unclean  meats  might  not  be  removed,  as  unnecessary,  from 
those  among  the  gentiles  who  abandon  the  customs  of  their  fa- 

8 


54 


Dr.  Schmucker's  Appeal . 


thers  and  believe  in  Jesus.  And  in  the  epistles  of  Paul  we  per¬ 
ceive  that  in  the  time  of  those  who  had  seen  Jesus,  some  were 
found  who  called  in  question  the  resurrection,  and  disputed 
whether  it  had  not  already  taken  place  ;  and  also  concerning 
the  day  of  the  Lord,  whether  it  was  just  at  hand  or  not;  and 
that  (admonition)  to  avoid  profane,  vain  babblings  and  the  op¬ 
positions  of  knowledge  falsely  so  called,  which  some  professing, 
have  made  shipwreck  concerning  the  faith  ;  hence  it  is  manifest 
that  from  the  very  beginning  certain  differences  of  opinion  oc¬ 
curred,  at  a  time  when  (as  Celsus  supposes)  the  number  of  the 
believers  was  yet  small.  Then,  when  discoursing  about  the 
differences  of  opinion  amongst  Christians,  he  upbraids  us,  saying 
that  when  the  Christians  became  numerous  and  were  scattered 
abroad,  they  were  repeatedly  split  up  and  cut  into  parties,  each 
wishing  to  maintain  their  own  position,  and  then  (he  adds) — di¬ 
viding  again,  and  quarrelling  among  themselves:  until,  so  to 
speak,  they  agreed  in  only  one  thing,  that  is,  in  name,  if 
even  for  shame’s  sake  they  still  have  this  left  in  common  ; 
but  that  in  all  other  things  they  differ.  To  this  we  re¬ 
ply,  that  there  never  has  been  a  subject,  whose  principles  are 
of  any  moment  and  of  importance  in  life,  concerning  which  dif¬ 
ferent  opinions  have  not  existed.  Thus,  because  medicine  is 
useful  and  necessary  to  the  human  family,  there  are  many  dis¬ 
puted  points  in  it,  relating  to  the  different  modes  of  curing  the 
diseased.  Hence  different  parties  (schools  or  systems)  in  med¬ 
icine  are  confessedly  formed  among  the  Greeks,  and  I  believe 
also  among  such  of  the  barbarous  nations  as  avail  themselves  of 
the  healing  art.  And  again,  because  philosophy  professes  to 
teach  the  truth  and  instructs  us  in  a  knowledge  of  t lie  things 

-  O 

which  exist,  and  how  we  ought  to  live,  and  aims  at  showing 
what  will  be  advantageous  to  our  race,  it  has  many  topics  of 
dispute.  Hence  in  philosophy  also,  there  are  very  many  parties 
(systems,  schools,)  some  more  and  others  less  distinguished.”* 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  testimony  alike  of  the  most  distin- 

#  Origenes  contra  Celsmn,  pp.  120,  121.  edit.  Hoeschelii.— f  t  is  evi¬ 
dent  from  the  context,  and  certain  from  history,  that  Origen  when 
speaking  of  numerous  differences  among  the  Christians  of  his  day, 
uses  the  word  algtcrig  to  signify  diversities  of  opinion,  or  systems  of 
opinions  and  parties  maintaining  them,  without  any  separate  ecclesi¬ 
astical  organization  based  on  them,  and  without  interruption  of  sacra¬ 
mental  and  ministerial  ecclesiastical  intercommunion  of  the  parties. 
We  have  accordingly  thus  rendered  it  in  the  version  in  the  text. 


Dr.  Schmucktr* s  Appeal. 


55 


guished  infidel  and  Christian  of  the  second  and  third  century, 
to  the  existence  of  differences  of  opinion  (not  separate  ecclesi¬ 
astical  organizations)  in  the  Christian  church  ;  yet  at  that  time 
the  only  creed  which  it  was  deemed  proper  to  use,  was  that 
termed  the  Apostles’  creed.  In  short,  there  is  no  doubt,  that 
the  different  so  called  orthodox  Protestant  churches,  are  in  re¬ 
ality  as  much  united  in  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity 
as  the  church  in  the  earlier  centuries  was.  But  modern  creeds  in¬ 
stead  of  giving  prominence  to  this  unity,  and  preserving  it  by 
adding  a  few  sentences  to  these  venerable  ancient  confessions, 
in  order  to  exclude  the  fundamental  errors  which  have  sprung 
up  since  the  fourth  century,  are  swelled  some  to  fifty  and  some 
to  a  hundred  times  their  size  !  1  Thus  they  necessarily  intro¬ 
duce  so  many  minor  points  of  doctrine  and  opinion,  that  few  of 
the  members  of  the  churches  professing  them  do  in  reality  be¬ 
lieve  all  their  contents!  When  the  minor  points  of  difference 
are  embodied  in  a  creed,  they  become  the  stereotyped  charac¬ 
teristics  of  a  new  sect,  and  enlist  in  their  defence  many  of  the 
unsanctified  principles  of  our  nature.  They  become  wedges  of 
dissension  to  split  in  pieces  the  body  of  Christ,  they  form  per¬ 
manent  barriers  of  division  and  bulwarks  of  schism  in  his  church. 

4.  The  fourth  cause  of  alienation  among  Christians  is  the 
sectarian  training  of  the  rising  generation.  No  principle  is 
more  fully  established  in  the  philosophy  of  mind,  no  fact  more 
uniformly  attested  by  the  experience  of  ages,  than  that  the  im¬ 
pressions  of  early  life  are  most  lasting,  that  the  prejudices  of 
childhood  and  youth  pursue  us  through  every  subsequent  period 
of  life.  And  whoever  faithfully  traces  to  its  source  the  sectarian 
alienation  of  Christians  will,  we  think,  be  constrained  to  attribute 
much  of  it  to  early  sectarian  training. 

How  often  do  not  many  parents  in  the  presence  of  their  chil¬ 
dren,  exhibit  their  prejudices  against  other  religious  denomina¬ 
tions  ?  How  much  more  frequently  do  they  exalt  their  own 
denomination  above  all  others,  either  directly  or  by  comparative 
allusions  ?  Are  there  not  some  parents,  and  alas  that  it  should 
be  so  !  some  pastors  too,  who  strive  more  by  direct  effort  to  in¬ 
stil  a  disregard  for  others  and  a  preference  for  their  own  sect 
into  the  minds  of  children,  long  before  they  are  competent  to 
comprehend  or  estimate  the  grounds  of  the  supposed  preference  ? 
What  else  is  this  than  an  effort  to  sow  the  seeds  of  sheer  preju¬ 
dice  in  the  tender  minds  of  children  ?  It  is  right  that  the  pre¬ 
possessions  and  antipathies  of  youth  should  be  not  indeed  excited, 


56 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal 

but  properly  directed  ;  yet,  for  the  bleeding  Saviour’s  sake,  let 
the  former  be  enlisted  in  the  favor  of  Christianity,  not  of  secta- 
riantsm,  and  the  latter  be  directed  against  the  enemies  of  the 

cioss,  and  not  against  those  whom  we  profess  to  acknowledge 
as  its  friends ! 

o.  The  next  source  of  alienation  among  Christians,  is  what 
may  e  teimed  sectarian  idolatry  or  m an-w or ship ,  inordinate 
veneration  for  distinguished  theologians,  such  as  Luther,  Cal¬ 
vin,  Zwingli,  Wesley  and  others.  What  candid  man,  possess- 
mg  any  extensive  acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  past  ages, 
can  deny  that  the  deference  awarded  to  the  opinions  and  prac¬ 
tice  of  these  men,  is  altogether  inordinate,  entirely  beyond 
what  is  due  to  the  merits  of  other  men,  and  far  above  the 
measitie  of  their  actual  superiority.  Protestants  justly  censure 
the  Romish  church  for  reposing  such  confidence  in  the  authori¬ 
ty  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  that  is,  of  distinguished  theologians  of 
the  first  foui  or  five  centuries  of  the  Christian  church.  Yet  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  some  Protestants  have  not  inadvert¬ 
ently  conceded  to  some  of  these  modern  Fathers  an  influence 
somewhat  similar,  possibly  in  a  few  cases  even  equal  in  degree, 
ihe  names  of  these  good  and  great  yet  fallible  men,  have  be¬ 
come  identified  with  certain  distinguishing  non-fundamental 
doctrines  which  they  held,  and  by  which  they  were  distin¬ 
guished  from  others.  Their  authority  and  influence,  acquired 
y  then  zeal  and  success  in  behalf  of  the  common  Christianity, 
aie  thus  often  used  as  a  shield  of  protection  for  these  minor  pe¬ 
culiarities.  The  very  designation  of  these  peculiarities  by  per¬ 
sonal  names,  calls  into  play  sectarian  associations,  and  sinister 

Fathers*  ^  ^  ^  °f  C°Veit  appeal  t0  the  authority  of  these 

Moreover  each  sect  is  prone  to  cultivate  almost  exclusively  the 
literature  of  its  own  denomination.  Enter  the  theological  schools 
or  the  private  libraries  of  ministers,  and  you  will  find  that  <ren- 

j  m  i  ™  3nC^  ^a^v^n^sts  and  Episcopalians  and  Baptists 
and  Methodists,  devote  most  of  their  time  to  the  study  of  au¬ 
thors  of  their  own  denominations,  and  this  peculiarity  may  also 
be  distinctly  traced  in  the  libraries  of  many  lay  Christians, 
x  any  of  these  distinguished  servants  of  God  would  have  grieved 
to  think  of  the  sectarian  use,  which  posterity  has  made  of  their 
names  and  literary  labors.  Listen  to  the  language  of  Luther, 
whose  name  and  works  were  for  two  centuries  especially  thus 
employed  in  Germany  for  purposes  of  strife  :  “  I  had  cherished 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal  57 

i 

the  hope,  that  henceforth  men  would  apply  to  the  holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  themselves,  and  let  my  books  alone  ;  as  they  have  now 
accomplished  their  end  and  have  conducted  the  hearts  of  men 
to  the  Scriptures,  which  was  my  design  in  writing  them.  What 
profit  is  there  in  the  making  of  many  books,  and  yet  remaining 
ignorant  of  the  book  of  books.  Better  far  to  drink  out  of  the 
fountain  itself,  than  out  of  the  little  rivulets  which  have  con¬ 
ducted  you  to  it.# — Whoever  now  wishes  to  have  my  books,  I 
entreat  him  by  no  means  to  let  them  be  an  obstacle  to  his 
studying  the  Scriptures  themselves.  But  let  him  look  upon  my 
books,  as  I  do  on  the  decretals  of  the  popes  and  books  of  the 
sophists,  that  is,  though  I  occasionally  look  into  them  to  see 
what  they  performed,  and  to  examine  the  history  of  the  times, 
I  by  no  means  study  them  under  the  impression,  that  I  must  do 
as  they  teach.f  Yet  there  is  reason  to  fear,  that  some  good 
men  have  by  early  and  long  continued  training  become  so  much 
accustomed  to  test  and  value  their  views,  rather  as  being  Lu¬ 
theran  or  Calvinistic  than  biblical,  have  so  long  been  in  the 
habit  of  dwelling  on  the  conformity  of  their  sentiments  to  those 
of  Luther,  Calvin,  Wesley,  or  some  other  worthy  of  the  church, 
that  they  would  feel  deeply  distressed  and  almost  lost,  if  these 
names  were  wrested  from  them  !  In  the  spirit  of  such  sectari¬ 
anism  we  might  commiserate  the  condition  of  the  primitive  dis¬ 
ciples  whose  Christianity  was  based  on  the  Saviour  alone ! 
W e  might  exclaim,  “  Unhappy  Paul,  thou  hadst  no  Luther  nor 
Calvin  nor  Wesley  to  glory  in,  or  whose  name  thou  couldst 
bear  in  addition  to  that  of  Christ !”  But  were  such  the  feelings 
of  Paul  ?  .  He  might  himself  have  been  a  Luther,  a  Calvin,&a 
Wesley,  his  name  the  watchword  of  a  sect;  but  the  noble- 
minded  Paul  would  glory  only  in  Christ.  He  would  not  allow 
the  adoption  of  any  sectarian  name  in  the  church.  Sectarian 
names  and  party  divisions  he  denounced  as  carnal.  “  There- 
foie  (said  he)  u  let  no  man  glory  in  men  ;  for  they  are  all 
yours  (they  are  all  the  property  of  the  whole  church),  whether 
Paul  or  Apollos  or  Cephas,”  (and  we  may  add  Luther  and 
Calvin  and  Wesley)  :  all  are  yours,  and  ye  are  Christ’s,  and 
Christ  is  God’s.  So  then  (ovzcog)  let  a  man  consider  us  (me 
and  Apollos,  etc.)  as  ministers  of  Christ  and  stewards  of  the 
mysteries  of  God  (but  not  as  leaders  of  parties). ”J  He  would 

*  Luther’s  Deutsche  Werke,  B.  14.  S.  422.  f  Ibid.  S.  490. 

X  1  Cor.  3:21—4:  J. 


58 


Dr.  Schmucker'  $  Appeal. 


have  all  believers  called  Christians  and  only  Christians.  All 
that  this  name  implied  he  wished  to  be,  and  neither  more  nor 
less.  Happy  day  !  when  this  spirit  shall  return  to  the  church  ! 
Then  she  may  celebrate  a  jubilee,  a  glorious  jubilee  ;  and  it  will 
literally  be  not  a  centennial,  but  a  millennial  jubilee.  The  last 
thousand  years  will  have  witnessed  but  one  !  ! 

Nor  would  we  pass  in  silence  a  collateral  evil,  resulting  from 
the  almost  exclusive  cultivation  of  sectarian  literature.  As  this 
literature  is  all  of  a  date  subsequent  to  the  Reformation,  its  pe¬ 
rusal  impresses  the  Protestant  laity  with  the  modern  origin  of 
our  churches  ;  and  leaves  them  in  almost  total  darkness  as  to 
our  real  identity  with  the  church  of  the  earlier  ages.  Hence 
our  people  are  unduly  impressed  by  the  Romish  claim  to  supe¬ 
rior  antiquity,  and  an  advantage  is  conceded  to  papists  of  which 
they  cunningly  avail  themselves.  If  Protestants  selected  their 
literature  promiscuously  from  among  the  different  sects  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  writers,  it  would  tend  much  to 
promote  actual  unity  and  mutual  esteem  among  themselves  ; 
and  if,  both  in  their  literature  and  creeds,  they  gave  greater  pro¬ 
minence  to  their  identity  with  the  primitive  church,  they  would 
make  the  laity  feel  their  connexion  with  the  Christians  of  the 
earlier  centuries,  and  thus  nullify  the  most  popular  argument  by 
which  papists  proselyte  Protestant  members. 

6.  Another  source  of  sectarian  discord,  is  ecclesiastical  pride. 
As  long  as  man  is  sanctified  but  in  part,  this  element  of  native 
depravity  will  more  or  less  influence  the  disciples  of  Christ ; 
will  seek  and  often  find  fuel  even  in  the  sanctuary  of  God. 
Each  sect  is  naturally  disposed  to  regard  its  institutions  and  its 
ministers  as  the  most  learned  and  able,  or  its  members  as 
most  genteel,  or  its  rites  most  fashionable,  its  churches  most 
splendid,  or  its  members  the  most  pious,  its  pales  as  far  the  best 
road  to  heaven.  Ministers  are  tempted  to  be  influenced  by  the 
fact,  that  they  regard  their  churches  as  presenting  the  most  con¬ 
spicuous  theatre  for  the  display  of  their  talents,  or  holding  out 
the  fairest  prospects  of  advancement  ;  their  audiences  as  the 
most  intelligent,  their  support  as  the  most  liberal,  or  as  best  se¬ 
cured  against  contingencies.  Hence  they  are  in  danger  of 
looking  on  their  less  favored  neighbors  with  secret  disrespect ; 
of  cherishing  ecclesiastical  pride,  and  having  their  judgment 
warped  by  it.  We  do  not  assert  that  all  ministers  or  laymen 
yield  to  the  influence  of  this  temptation,  yet  happy  is  that  man, 
who,  on  an  impartial  examination  of  his  feelings  as  in  the  pre- 


\ 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal-  59 

sence  of  God,  stands  fully  acquitted  by  his  own  conscience  l 
That  caution  here  is  not  superfluous,  was  evidently  the  opinion 
of  the  great  apostle  of  the  gentiles,  who  having  himself  repelled 
all  sectarian  honors,  gives  double  force  to  his  admonition  : 

“  These  things,  brethren,  I  have  figuratively  transferred  (applied) 
to  myself  and  to  A  polios,  for  your  sakes,  that  ye  might  learn 
by  us  not  to  esteem  ministers  (see  v.  1.)  above  what  is  writ¬ 
ten  (in  v.  1.  and  ch.  3:  5 — 9,  21.)  that  no  one  of  you  may,  on 
account  of  one  (minister),  be  puffed  up  against  another!” 

7.  The  last  source  of  sectarian  discord  to  be  noticed  is; 
conflict  of  pecuniary  interest  between  neighbouring  ministers  4 
and  churches.  This  principle  applies  to  the  feelings  of  the 
minister  in  regard  to  his  salary,  which  depends  in  some  mea¬ 
sure  on  the  increase  of  his  church.  In  reference  to  laymen,  it 
applies  to  their  raising  funds  for  all  ecclesiastical  purposes.. 
The  more  their  church  prospers  and  receives  additions,  the 
more  will  their  pecuniary  liabilities  be  divided,  the  more  easily 
will  the  burden  rest  on  their  shoulders.  Hence  both  pastors 
and  people  are  tempted  to  envy  and  jealousy  towards  their 
Christian  neighbors  of  other  denominations,  because  the  success 
of  either  party,  is  more  or  less  at  the  expense  of  the  other. 
The  success  of  either,  diminishes  the  amount  of  materials  for 
the  others  to  act  on,  and  this  is  a  matter  of  serious  moment  to 
the  parties  especially  in  smaller  towns  and  villages,  where  often 
twice  as  many  ministers  are  stationed  as  are  needed,  or  can  be 
supported. 

From  this  difficulty  the  primitive  church  was  almost  entirely 
exempt.  In  the  earlier  ages  it  was  customary  to  appoint,  that 
is,  ordain  several  elders,  or  as  we  now  term  them  ministers,  in 
every  church,  who  divided  the  labor  between  them,  and  gen¬ 
erally  continued  to  prosecute  their  secular  business,  thus  in  a 
great  measure  supporting  themselves  ;  whilst  it  was  customary 
from  the  beginning  to  provide  for  those  who  went  abroad  as 
missionaries ,  and  travelled  from  place  to  place.*  The  only  fund 
of  the  church,  was  that  which  arose  from  the  voluntary  offer¬ 
ings  of  the  members  on  each  Lord’s  day.  This  fund  however 
was  considerable  ;  and  it  was  probably  as  a  stimulus  to  liberali¬ 
ty,  that  the  custom  of  reading  off  the  names  of  the  contributors 
was  introduced  ;  though  its  professed  design  was  to  commend 
them  to  the  special  prayers  of  the  church.f  In  the  third  cen- 

*  Fuch’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenversarmnlungen,  Vol.  I.  p.  72,  7& 

f  Ibid.  Vol.  I.  p.  72. 


60 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

tury,  when  the  duties  of  ministers  had  become  so  greatly  multi¬ 
plied  as  to  require  their  entire  time,  they  were  in  some  coun¬ 
tries  prohibited  from  following  any  secular  profession,  as  we 
learn  from  Cyprian,*  and  other  sources.  The  sixth  of  the 
Apostolic  Canons  reads  thus  : 

Canon  6.  Neither  a  bishop,  presbyter  nor  deacon  shall  en¬ 
gage  in  secular  employment,  on  pain  of  being  deposed  from  of¬ 
fice . 

And  the  fortieth  canon  is  as  follows  : 

Canon  40.  We  ordain  that  the  bishop  shall  have  the  control 
of  the  congregational  property.  For  as  the  precious  souls  of 
men  are  committed  to  his  care,  much  more  ought  he  to  have  the 
control  of  the  church  property ,  that  he  may  freely  arrange  ev¬ 
ery  thing,  that  he  may  aid  the  poor  through  the  instrument ali- 
ty  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  in  the  fear  of  God  and  in  all 
honesty.  He  shall  also  be  permitted  to  apply  a  portion  of  it 
to  his  own  indispensable  wants,  if  he  needs  it,  as  also  for 
strange  Christians  who  have  come  as  guests ;  and  in  these  ca¬ 
ses  it  is  not  necessary  to  suffer  any  want  {fifrcday^aveiv  de  xou 
aviov  tcnv  deovvwv,  tiye  deeizo,  fig  rag  dvuyy.uiug  auzco  ygsiag 
y.at  zwv  fnv^fvovyfvwv  afieXquuv,  cJg  v.ara  yqdfva  TQonov  avrovg 
VOZfQflO&ai). 

The  fifty-eighth  canon  likewise  relates  to  this  subject : 

Canon  58.  If  a  bishop  refuses  to  supply  the  indispensable 
wants  of  a  poor  minister  (namely  from  the  church  funds)  he 
shall  be  set  aside;  and  if  he  still  refuses  to  do  it,  let  him  be 
deposed  as  a  murderer  of  his  brethren .f 

At  the  Synod  of  Elvira,  (in  Spain,  near  the  site  of  the  pre¬ 
sent  Granada,)  the  date  of  which  is  not  entirely  certain,  though 
fixed  with  probability  about  the  year  313,  a  restriction  was  im¬ 
posed  on  ministers,  by  the  eighteenth  canon,  which  however 
presupposes  that  in  Spain  the  secular  business  of  ministers  was 
not  yet  entirely  prohibited. 

Canon  18.  Bishops,  elders  and  deacons  shall  not  leave  their 
place  of  residence  for  the  sake  of  trade,  nor  traverse  the  pro¬ 
vinces  for  the  purposes  of  attending  profitable  fairs.  They 
may,  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  a  subsistence ,  send  a  son,  or 


*  Cypriani  ep.  66.  to  the  church  at  Furnae.  Neander,  sup.  cit.  p 
305.  v 

f  Roessler’s  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater,  Vol.  4.  p.  232,  242,  248. 


Dr.  Schmucker's  Appeal. 


61 


or  Jreedman,  or  hireling ,  or  friend ,  or  cmt/  one  else ;  and  if 
they  ivish  to  pursue  any  secular  business,  let  it  be  within  their 
province A 

In  accordance  with  these  original  documents,  is  the  opinion 
of  Dr.  Neander,  who  is  confessedly  the  most  learned  writer  of 
the  present  age,  on  the  ancient  history  of  the  church.  “  It  is 
almost  certain  (says  he)  that  in  the  beginning,  those  who  held 
offices  in  the  church,  continued  to  pursue  their  secular  business, 
and  thereby  supported  their  families,  as  they  had  previously 
done.  The  congregations,  which  consisted  chiefly  of  the  poor, 
were  scarcely  able  to  provide  for  the  support  of  their  ministers 
(presbyters)  and  deacons,  especially  as  at  that  time  many  other 
demands  were  made  on  the  congregational  treasury,  such  as  for 
the  support  of  the  destitute  widows,  of  the  poor,  of  the  sick, 
and  of  orphans.  And  it  may  be  that  the  ministers  often  be¬ 
longed  to  the  wealthiest  members  of  the  church,  and  indeed 
this  must  often  have  been  the  case,  as  their  office  required  a 
degree  of  previous  cultivation  of  mind  and  manners,  which 
could  more  frequently  be  found  among  persons  in  the  higher  or 
middle  walks  of  life,  than  among  the  lower  classes  of  society, 
[f  it  was  necessary  that  the  presbyters  or  bishops,  as  they  were 
in  all  respects  to  be  an  example  to  the  flock,  should  also  have 
been  distinguished  among  the  Christians  for  their  hospitality 
(1  Tim.  3:  2),  they  must  have  belonged  to  those  in  easy  cir¬ 
cumstances,  of  whom  the  number  was  not  large, — and  how 
could  such  persons  have  permitted  themselves  to  be  supported 
by  the  savings  of  their  more  needy  brethren  !  The  apostle 
Paul  does  indeed  declare,  that  the  missionaries  who  went  abroad 
to  publish  the  gospel,  are  entitled  to  a  support  from  those  for 
whose  spiritual  benefit  they  labor,  but  we  cannot  hence  infer 
the  same  in  regard  to  the  officers  of  individual  congregations. 
The  former  could  not  well  unite  their  secular  profession  with 
the  duties  of  their  spiritual  calling,  although  to  the  self-denial 
of  Paul  even  this  was  possible.  But  the  latter  could  at  first 
easily  combine  their  secular  profession  with  their  ecclesiastical 
office.  Nor  was  there  any  thing  offensive  in  such  a  union  ac- 


*  Ibid.  Vol.  4.  p.  280,  281.  Episcopi,  Presbyteri  et  Diacones  de 
locis  suis  liegotiandi  causa  non  discedant ;  nec  circumeuntes  provin¬ 
ces  quaestuosas  nundinas  sectentur.  Sane  ad  victual  sibi  conquiren- 
dum  aut  filium,  aut  libertum,  ant  mercenarium,  aut  amicum,  aut  quem- 
libet  mittant,  et  si  voluerint  negotiari,  intra  provinciam  negotientur. 

9 


62 


Dr.  Schmuckers  Appeal. 

cording  to  the  primitive  views  of  the  Christians ;  for  they  were 
convinced,  that  every  earthly  calling  also  could  be  sanctified  by 
the  Christian  design  for  which  it  is  pursued,  and  they  knew  that 
even  an  apostle  followed  a  secular  business  whilst  engaged  in 
publishing  the  gospel.  But  when  the  congregations  became 
larger,  and  the  duties  of  the  church  officers  more  numerous, 
when  the  duty  of  teaching  was  chiefly  confined  to  the  ministers, 
as  the  office  ol  the  ministers  required  all  their  time  and  exer¬ 
tions  il  they  would  perform  them  faithfully  ;  it  was  often  no 
longer  possible  for  them  to  provide  for  their  own  support,  and 
the  congregations  having  become  larger,  contained  more  wealth, 
and  were  now  able  to  support  them.  The  salary  of  the  minis¬ 
ters  was  paid  out  ol  the  congregational  treasury,  which  was 
supplied  by  a  voluntary  contribution  from  each  member  at  the 
meeting  for  public  worship  on  every  Lord’s  day,  or  as  in  North¬ 
ern  Africa,  on  the  first  Sunday  of  each  month.  Ministers  were 
now  urged  to  abstain  from  worldly  business  ;  and  in  the  third 
century  they  were  absolutely  prohibited  from  all  such  employ¬ 
ment,  even  from  the  duties  of  a  guardian.  This  regulation  was 
doubtless  founded  on  a  very  good  reason,  and  was  intended  for 
the  very  salutary  purpose  of  preventing  the  clergy  from  forget¬ 
ting  their  sacred  calling  amid  their  worldly  engagements  ;  for 
we  see  from  the  work  ol  Cyprian,  de  lapsis,  that  during  the 
long  continued  peace,  a  worldly  spirit  had  already  crept  in 
among  the  bishops,  and  that,  immersed  in  secular  business, 
they  neglected  their  spiritual  duties  and  the  welfare  of  their 
churches.”* 

Such  then  are  the  undoubted  facts  in  the  case.  In  the  be¬ 
ginning  there  was  not,  there  could  not  be  any  conflict  of  pecu¬ 
niary  interest  between  adjoining  ministers  and  congregations. 
But  it  is  evident,  that  even  after  it  became  necessary  for  minis¬ 
ters  to  relinquish  their  secular  business  and  be  supported  by 
their  congregations  which  they  had  a  clear  right  to  demand  as 
soon  as  the  congregations  were  large  enough  to  support  them, 
as  Paul  distinctly  teaches  in  1  Cor.  ix.  scarcely  any  more  diffi¬ 
culty  could  arise  ;  because,  there  being  but  one  denomination  of 
Christians,  there  could  not  be  several  conflicting  churches  aim¬ 
ing  to  occupy  the  same  ground,  and  the  cases  would  be  rare  in 
which  more  ministers  would  be  stationed  in  one  place,  than  the 
population  required  and  could  support. 

*  Neander’s  Allgemeine  Geschicht©  der  christlichen  Religion  und 
Kirche,  Vo).  I.  p.  303,  304,  305. 


63 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

How  great  the  difficulties  are,  which  now  arise  from  this 
source  is  well  known.  Yet  they  might  be  greatly  diminished 
by  the  plan  of  union  hereafter  proposed,  if,  a)  the  confederated 
denominations  would  resolve  not  to  send  into  any  neighbor¬ 
hood  more  ministers  than  would  constitute  a  reasonable  supply, 
say  one  to  every  thousand  souls,  b)  Let  all  the  members  of 
the  confederated  churches,  resident  in  such  bounds  unite  in  sup¬ 
porting  one  and  the  same  minister.  And  c)  if  the  whole  con¬ 
federated  population  of  such  a  district  is  unable  to  furnish  an 
adequate  support  for  a  minister,  let  application  be  made  to  the 
Home  Missionary  Society  for  aid.  Thus  would  many  labor¬ 
ers  be  spared  for  destitute  portions  of  our  land  and  of  our  globe, 
brotherly  love  would  more  abound  in  the  church  at  home,  and 
unity  of  spirit  be  greatly  promoted. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Remedy  for  these  evils ,  or  plan  for  the  restoration  of  Catholic 

Union  on  Apostolic  Principles. 

Any  plan  of  union,  in  order  to  possess  a  claim  to  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  different  Christian  denominations  generally,  must  be 
based  on  apostolic  principles,  must  be  accordant  with  the  spirit 
and  principles  of  the  New'  Testament,  or  deducible  from  them. 
It  must  leave  untouched  the  unalienable  rights  and  obligations  of 
Christians,  and  therefore  must  possess  the  following  attributes  : 

1.  It  must  require  of  no  one  the  renunciation  of  any  doctrine 
or  opinion  believed  by  him  to  be  scriptural  or  true. 

2.  It  must  concede  to  each  denomination  or  branch  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  the  right  to  retain  its  own  organization,  or  to 
alter  or  amend  it  at  option,  leaving  every  thing  relative  to  gov¬ 
ernment,  discipline,  and  worship,  to  be  managed  by  each  de¬ 
nomination  according  to  its  own  views  for  the  time  being.  The 
principle  of  ecclesiastical  associations  is  scriptural  ;  the  mode  of 
its  application  and  the  extent  of  its  use,  are  not  decided  by  the 
sacred  volume,  and  therefore  are  just  matter  for  private  judg¬ 
ment  and  progressive  experience. 

3.  It  must  dissuade  no  one  from  discussing  fundamentals  and 
non-fundamentals  in  the  spirit  ofehristian  love,  and  amicably  show¬ 
ing  why  he  believes  some  non-fundamental  opinions  held  by  any 


64 


Dr.  Schmucker^ s  Appeal. 

of  his  brethren  to  be  incorrect. — Controversies  might  even  exist 
among  the  confederated  brethren,  under  the  influence  of  scriptural 
union  ;  but  they  would  be  divested  of  most  of  their  bitterness, 
because  the  points  at  issue  would  confessedly  be  lion-funda¬ 
mental ,  having  little  or  no  perceptible  influence  on  Christian 
practice,  involving  no  pecuniary  loss  by  ejection  from  a  pastoral 
relation,  and  menacing  no  ecclesiastical  disabilities. 

4.  The  plan  must  be  applicable  to  all  the  orthodox  Christian 
denominations,  to  all  that  are  regarded  as  portions  of  Christ’s 
visible  church  on  earth.  It  must  embrace  all  whom  the  apos¬ 
tles  and  primitive  Christians  would  have  admitted  to  the  one 
catholic  or  universal  church  ;  all  whom  God  has  owned  by  the 
influence  of  his  Spirit  and  grace.  Upon  this  ground  James, 
Peter,  and  John  admitted  Paul  who  had  formerly  been  a  perse¬ 
cutor  of  the  brethren,  and  “gave  to  him  the  right  hand  of  fel¬ 
lowship.”*  The  Saviour  never  enjoined  on  men  the  duty  of 
fixing  the  terms  of  communion  in  his  church.  This  he  has 
himself  done  in  his  word  by  precept  and  by  the  apostolic  exam¬ 
ple  ;  and  we  are  treading  on  forbidden  ground  when  we  sepa¬ 
rate  those  whom  God  by  his  grace  and  Spirit  hath  joined  to¬ 
gether.  This  js  indeed  not  the  design  of  the  different  denomi¬ 
nations,  but  is  it  not  too  true,  that  it  is  virtually  the  result  of  the 
present  state  of  sectarian  division  ? 

Having  now  considered  the  character  of  primitive  unity,  and 
the  causes  of  discord  in  the  different  branches  of  the  Protestant 
church ;  let  us  take  our  stand  on  the  high  ground  of  apostolic 
principles,  and  from  that  elevated  post  survey  the  divided  heri¬ 
tage  of  the  Saviour,  and  inquire  how  may  the  spirit,  and,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  form  of  primitive  unity  be  restored  ?  And  may 
that  blessed  Saviour,  who  promised  wisdom  from  above  to  them 
that  ask  it,  to  lead  them  into  all  necessary  truth,  grant  us  the 
tuition  of  his  Spirit  to  guide  and  bless  this  humble  effort  for  the 
accomplishment  of  his  own  fervent  prayer  in  behalf  of  his  disci¬ 
ples  :  “  That  they  all  may  be  one ;  as  thou,  Father,  art  in 

me,  and  I  in  thee.” 

I.  Some  few  advocates  of  union  have  proposed,  that  all  others 
should  abandon  their  systems  and  peculiarities,  and  unite  with 
them  by  conforming  in  all  things  to  their  views  and  practice. 

*  Gal.  2:  9:  When  James,  Cephas  and  John,  perceived  the  grace 
that  was  given  unto  me,  they  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


65 


As  this  method  violates  the  unalienable  rights  and  obligations 
of  Christians,  by  requiring  the  abandonment  of  what  they  be¬ 
lieve  truth,  and  the  practice  of  what  they  consider  error,  it  can¬ 
not  be  regarded  as  judicious,  or  as  promising  any  success.  It 
would,  moreover,  betray  extreme  weakness  for  any  one  Christian 
sect  at  this  late  day,  to  calculate  on  the  universal  adoption  of  its 
peculiarities  by  all  others.  Better,  far  better  will  it  be,  that  all 
endeavor  to  forget  sectarian  differences,  and  cooperate  for  the 
publication  of  the  Gospel  to  the  600,000,000  of  perishing 
heathen,  with  a  degree  of  ardor  and  cordiality,  which  will  make 
us  wear  the  appearance  of  one  church. 

II.  It  has  been  proposed,  that  each  denomination  should  re¬ 
nounce  its  standards  of  doctrine  and  government  and  worship, 
and  then  all  unite  in  one  new,  short  confession,  embracing  only 
those  doctrines  held  in  common  by  all,  and  establishing  such  a 
system  of  government,  as  all  could  conscientiously  adopt ;  whilst 
entire  liberty  and  privilege  of  diversity  should  be  enjoyedffiy  all 
on  every  point  not  determined  by  the  new  standards. 

This  plan  is  liberal  in  its  principles,  violates  none  of  the  un¬ 
alienable  rights  and  obligations  of  Christians,  and  therefore  pos¬ 
sesses  claims  of  the  highest  order.  It  lacks  but  one  attribute  of 
a  proper  union  for  Christians,  on  an  apostolic  basis.  The  apos¬ 
tles  and  primitive  churches  maintained  unity  with  all  whom  they 
acknowledged  as  Christians  ;  but  this  plan,  we  fear,  is  not  ap¬ 
plicable  to  all  orthodox  Christian  denominations.  It  would, 
promise  a  union  of  the  Lutherans,  the  Congregationalists,  the 
Presbyterians,  the  German  Reformed,  the  Dutch  Reformed, 
the  Baptists,  and,  in  short,  of  all  those  orthodox  denominations, 
which  hold  parity  of  ministers.  The  Moravians,  or  United 
Brethren  also  could  unite  so  far  as  doctrine  is  concerned,  for  as 
they  adopt  and  have  always  held  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
there  would  be  no  difficulty.  The  same  is  true  so  far  as  doc¬ 
trine  is  concerned,  of  the  Episcopal  church,  the  Methodist  and 
all  other  churches  which  practise  diocesan  episcopacy  in  our 
land.  But  the  writer  is  unable  to  perceive  how  these  denomi¬ 
nations  could  all  unite  on  any  middle  ground  of  church  govern¬ 
ment.  We  must  either  have  diocesan  bishops  or  practise  min¬ 
isterial  parity  ;  and  any  plan,  constructed  on  the  principle  of 
uniformity,  must  adopt  either  the  one  or  the  other,  and  could  not 
enjoin  both.  But  these  churches  are  as  orthodox  and  pious  as 
any  others,,  and  God  has  as  distinctly  owned  them  as  his  own  * 


66 


JDt.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

so  that  we  should  feel  criminal  in  virtually  pronouncing  that  un¬ 
clean  which  God  has  sanctified,  were  we  to  advocate  a  plan  of 
union,  which  would  exclude  either  the  friends  of  ministerial 
parity  or  imparity.  But  if  this  plan  were  even  feasible,  its  adop¬ 
tion  would  probably  not  result  in  much  good  ;  as  it  would  col¬ 
lect  into  one  body  for  religious  worship,  those  whose  modes 
and  habits  of  worship  are  so  materially  diverse  as  to  justify  the 
anticipation  of  but  little  harmony  or  edification. 

HI*  Our  own  plan,  which  appears  to  us  more  accordant  with 
the  requisite  attributes  ol  a  plan  for  Christian  union  on  apostolic 
principles,  more  feasible,  and  more  safe,  is  embraced  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  features  : 

First  Feature.  The  several  Christian  denominations  shall 
retain  each  its  own  present  ecclesiastical  organization,  govern¬ 
ment,  discipline,  and  mode  of  worship.  It  is  conceded  by  the  great 
body  of  Christians,  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  determine  all  the  par¬ 
ticulars  of  any  system  of  church  government,  but  leave  the  mat¬ 
ter,  excepting  some  important  outlines,  to  the  conscientious  judg¬ 
ment  and  experience  of  the  church  in  every  age,  and  under 
every  form  of  civil  government  ;  and  the  few  who  think  they 
find  their  entire  system  of  government  in  Scripture,  do  not  re¬ 
gard  it  as  so  essential  as  to  lead  them  to  deny  the  Christian 
character  of  others.  Hence  every  church  has  an  equal  right 
deliberately  to  test  her  forms  of  ecclesiastical  organization  by 
experience  ;  and  diversity  of  practice  on  this  point,  ought  nei¬ 
ther  to  preclude  ecclesiastical  communion,  nor  impede  substan¬ 
tial  union  among  the  parties.  This  principle  is  distinctly  avow¬ 
ed  in  the  mother  symbol  of  Protestantism,  the  Augsburg  Con¬ 
fession  :  “  For  the  true  unity  of  the  church  (say  the  confessors) 
nothing  more  is  required  than  agreement  concerning  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
Nor  is  it  necessary,  that  the  same  human  traditions,  that  is,  rites 
and  ceremonies  instituted  by  men,  should  be  everywhere  ob¬ 
served.”  *  It  is  indeed  true,  that  whilst  many  churches  have 
no  connection  whatever  with  each  other  even  though  contig¬ 
uous  ;  others  are  united  together  more  closely  than  any  of  the 
apostolic  churches  were.  But  the  questions  whether  and  when 
they  shall  relax  these  sectarian  bonds,  should  be  left  to  their 
own  decision.  The  evils  of  too  close  a  union  in  extended  bodies 
are  beginning  to  be  extensively  felt;  and  if  through  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  the  impartial  investigation,  fostered  by  the  kind  of  union 

*  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  VII. 


67 


Dr.  Schmuclcer’s  Appeal. 

proposed  in  this  Appeal,  some  churches  should  relinquish  any 
leatures  of  their  ecclesiastical  organization,  as  is  entirely  possi¬ 
ble  ;  they  have  full  liberty  to  reform  themselves,  and,  under  the 
progressive  light  of  God’s  providence,  gradually,  to  assume 
towards  each  other  and  towards  the  great  body  of  the  Protes¬ 
tant  church,  whatever  relation  and  organization  appear  to  them 
best  adapted  to  the  millennial  age.  But  the  attempt,  to  unite 
all  the  churches  in  our  land  under  the  control  of  one  judicatory 
of  supervision,  jurisdiction,  and  appeal,  appears  to  the  writer 
neither  desirable  nor  safe.  It  would  be  a  distinct  approxima¬ 
tion  to  a  new  hierarchy.  Very  extensive  courts  are  too  cum¬ 
bersome  for  efficient  action,  business  is  retarded,  power  tends  to 
accumulation,  the  rights  of  conscience  are  in  danger  of  being 
infringed  either  by  statute,  or  by  an  accumulated  moral  influ¬ 
ence  which  crushes  all  that  refuses  to  submit  to  its  dictation. 

Moreover,  so  long  as  men  entertain  materially  different  views 
of  government  and  modes  of  worship,  it  cannot  be  conducive  to 
harmony  or  edification,  to  press  them  to  unite  on  any  one  form.. 
The  attempt  to  promote  union  by  the  immediate  abandonment 
of  existing  organizations,  would  seem  to  be  inexpedient  also  for 
another  reason.  Experience  proves  it  dangerous  suddenly  to 
unsettle  the  long  established  habits  of  the  community  ;  lest 
being  released  from  the  old,  they  fail  generally  to  settle  down 
with  firmness  on  any  thing  new  that  is  better.  But  the  first 
feature  of  our  plan,  by  stipulating  that  each  denomination  shall 
retain  its  organization  as  long  as  it  shall  see  fit,  provides  against 
this  danger,  and  leaves  each  denomination  as  an  independent 
community  to  watch  the  effects  of  the  other  features  hereafter 
proposed,  and  decide  for  itself  how  far  to  accede  to  the  terms 
of  union,  and  how  long  to  adhere  to  them.  It  also  provides  for 
the  indulgence  of  existing  diversities  and  preferences  so  long  as 
they  shall  continue ;  whilst  the  other  features  will  gradually 
tend  to  diminish  them  ;  thus  inviting  external  uniformity  no 
faster  than  unity  of  spirit  and  of  views  has  fully  prepared  the  way. 
And,  finally,  this  feature  would  leave  untouched  the  relations, 
government  and  charters  of  the  various  religious,  theological 
and  benevolent  institutions,  whilst  the  general  plan  of  union 
would  promote  unity  of  spirit  and  efficient  cooperation  among 
them  all,  for  accelerating  the  grand  enterprise  of  the  Christian 
church,  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  rational  creature. 

Second  Feature.  Let  each  of  the  confederated  denomina¬ 
tions  formally  resolve  for  itself  \  not  to  discipline  any  member  or 


68 


Dr.  Schmucked  s  Appeal. 

minister ,  for  holding  a  doctrine  believed  by  any  other  denomina¬ 
tion  whose  Christian  character  they  acknowledge ,  provided  his 
deportment  be  unexceptionable ,  and  he  conform  to  the  rules  of 
government ,  discipline  and  worship  adopted  by  said  denomina¬ 
tion.  This  would  be  actually  retaining  in  good  standing  all, 
whom  the  apostles  would  have  retained.  And  yet,  such  is  the 
influence  of  habit  and  long  familiarity  with  sectarian  or^aniza- 
tions,  that  to  some  this  feature  of  our  plan  will  appear  altogeth¬ 
er  impracticable.  Rut  if  it  is  so  in  any  portion  of  the  church, 
it  must  be  from  want  of  Christian  charity  ,  of  that  grace  enjoined 
by  the  apostle,  “  not  to  judge  a  brother,”  (Romans  xiv.), 
lrom  indisposition  or  inability  to  obey  the  apostolic  precept, 
to  receive  those  who  are  weak  in  the  faith,  but  not  to  doubt¬ 
ful  disputation.  If  then  it  be  only  our  want  of  charity  which 
disqualifies  us  for  the  adoption  of  this  feature  of  union,  let 
us  not  assail  it ;  but  set  about  reforming  ourselves,  and  en- 
larging  our  hearts,  until  they  cordially  respond  to  the  injunction 
of  the  great  apostle  ol  the  Gentiles,  to  receive  those  who  are 
weak  (in  our  judgment,  defective,)  in  the  faith.  It  is  true,  the 
apostle  Peter  denounced  some  as  false  teachers,  and  Paul  com¬ 
manded  the  excommunication  of  others ;  but  what  were  the 
crimes  or  heresies  of  which  these  persons  were  convicted  ?  If 
they  were  such  as  all  the  orthodox  churches  would  unite  in  re¬ 
garding  an  ample  ground  of  excommunication,  and  if  in  no  in¬ 
stance  the  apostles  enjoined  discipline,  for  a  point  which  any 
orthodox  denomination  would  regard  as  insufficient,  then  the 
apostolic  example  affords  full  sanction  for  our  plan,  because  this 
is  exactly  the  ground  which  it  assumes,  and  by  its  provisions 
all  would  be  excluded  whom  the  apostles  would  reject ;  and  is 
not  that  enough  ?  As  to  false  doctrine,  we  find  Peter  denounc¬ 
ing  those  as  false  teachers  who  “  bring  in  damnable  heresies 
(ociyeosig  ccTicuktiag,  destructive  heresies  or  divisions),  denying 
even  the  Lord  that  bought  them.”1  And,  it  is  scarcely  neces¬ 
sary  to  say,  that  such  errorists  would  unhesitatingly  be  excluded 
by  the  terms  of  the  proposed  union,  as  they  also  were  from  the 
churches  of  the  earlier  centuries  by  the  apostles’  creed.  Peter 
denounced  Simon  Magus  as  “  having  neither  part  nor  lot  in 
this  matter,”  but  It  was  for  attempting  to  bribe  the  apostles  and 
believing  that  the  miraculous  gifts  of  God  could  be  purchased 
with  money.2  The  apostle  Paul  wishes  the  Galatians  to  cut 


1  2  Pet  2:  1. 


3  Acts  8:  9,  10. 


69 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

off  certain  persons, 1  but  they  were  guilty  of  having  denied  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  by  grace  on  account  of  the  merits  of  Christ, 
they  made  “  Christ  of  no  effect,”  2  maintaining  (probably,  not 
by  inference  of  others)  that  men  must  be  ‘‘justified  by  the 
law  ;”  3  thus  “  preaching  another  gospel,”4  and  denying  a  fun¬ 
damental  doctrine,  held  by  all  the  orthodox  denominations,  that 
salvation  is  by  grace,  through  the  merits  of  Christ.  And  in  his 
first  epistle  to  Timothy,  the  same  apostle  predicts,  that  “  in  after¬ 
times  some  shall  depart ,  (or  rather,  apostatize  dnooirioovzcu)  from 
the  faith.  And  what  was  it  in  them  which  he  denounced  as  apos¬ 
tasy  from  the  faith  ?  He  himself  informs  us,  that  it  was  giving  heed 
to  seducing  spirits,”  and  believing  the  doctrines  concerning  (not 
devils,  but  d'cuyovuov  demons,  or)  inferior  deities  such  as  worship¬ 
ped  heroes  or  saints,  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy,  “  having  their 
conscience  seared,”  “  forbidding  to  marry  and  commanding  to 
abstain  from  meats.”  Here  again  it  will  be  conceded,  that  any 
church  deserving  the  name  of  orthodox,  would  not  hesitate  to 
exclude  any  one  who  should  be  chargeable  with  the  counts 
summed  up  by  the  apostle,  and  so  mournfully  applicable  to  the 
Romish  church.  And,  finally,  the  beloved  apostle  John  warns 
his  readers  against  some  false  teachers,  whom  he  styles  anti¬ 
christs.  But  what  does  he  represent  them  as  teaching  ?  “  Who 
is  the  liar,  but  he  who  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  (the 
Messiah  promised  in  the  Old  Testament)  ?  He  is  the  anti¬ 
christ,  that  denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son.”  5  And  “  many 
deceivers  are  entered  into  the  world,  who  do  not  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  came  into  the  world ,  this  is  a  deceiver  and  an  an¬ 
tichrist.”6  Now  these,  if  we  mistake  not,  are  all  the  instances 
in  which  the  apostles  either  expressly  enjoined  excommunica¬ 
tion  for  error  in  doctrine,  or  denounced  the  errorists  in  language 
implying,  that  they  ought  to  be  regarded,  not  as  erring  breth¬ 
ren,  but  as  apostates  from  Christianity  ;  and,  as  not  one  of 
these  errors  is  held  by  any  of  the  so-called  orthodox  churches, 
as  every  one  of  them  is  denounced  by  them,  the  plan  we  pro¬ 
pose  would  reach  them  all,  and  thus  the  rigor  of  discipline  be 
quite  as  great  as  the  apostles  enjoined. 

In  addition  to  these  errors  in  doctrine,  the  apostle  has  enu¬ 
merated  a  list  of  practical  abuses,  as  proper  causes  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  discipline,  lest  a  little  leaven  of  sin  should  corrupt  the 

1  Gal.  5:12.  2  5:  4.  3  5:4.  4  1:6,  8,  9. 

5  1  John  2:  22.  6  2  John  v.  7. 


10 


70 


Dr.  Schmucker's  Appeal. 


whole  church,  namely  incest,1  fornication,  dishonesty  in  the  pur¬ 
suit  of  wealth,  idolatry,  railing,  drunkenness  and  extortion.  To 
this  class  also  belong  the  apostle’s  injunction  :  “  A  man  that  is 
a  schismatic  (aiyinxov,  a  maker  of  divisions  or  sects  or  parties 
in  the  church),2  after  the  first  and  second  admonition  reject,” 
and  that  of  the  Saviour  to  exclude  one  who  will  not  hear  the 
church.  let  as  these  are  not  doctrinal  aberrations,  they  are 
not  affected  by  the  plan  ol  union,  since  its  first  feature  provides 
that  each  denomination  shall  retain  its  rules  of  government,  dis¬ 
cipline  and  worship. 

And  is  there  no  passage  in  Scripture  justifying  discipline  for 
doctrinal  errors  of  a  minor  grade  ?  The  apostle  does  indeed 
command  us  u  earnestly  to  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints.”  Yet,  as  he  does  not  specify  how  we  ought  to 
contend,  whether  by  preaching,  or  writing,  or  ecclesiastical  dis¬ 
cipline,  it  is  uncertain  whether  discipline  was  meant.  And  ad¬ 
mitting  that  he  also  intended  discipline,  it  seems  reasonable, 
that  it  should  be  employed  only  in  defence  of  those  doctrines 
which  were  certainly  delivered  to  the  saints  ;  and  he  could  not 
have  meant  that  some  saints  should  turn  their  brethren  out  of 
the  church,  for  holding  sentiments  which  others  whom  they 
acknowledged  to  be  saints,  and  who  remained  in  the  church, 
believed  to  be  a  part  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  If  excommuni¬ 
cation  were  one  of  the  appointed  means  for  ascertaining  the 
truth,  it  might  with  propriety  be  applied  in  doubtful  cases.  But 
the  New  Testament  represents  it  as  a  penalty,  to  be  inflicted  on 
those  who  have  so  criminally  and  materially  forsaken  the  path 
of  truth  or  of  virtue,  as  to  be  unworthy  of  the  Christian  name. 
Hence  it  ought  not  to  be  applied  in  reference  to  points  on  which 
Christians  of  equal  piety,  talent,  and  grace,  are  in  debate,  wheth¬ 
er  they  belong  to  the  gospel  of  Christ  or  not. 

That  we  are  not  allowed  in  regard  to  matters  disputed  among 
Christians,  to  act  as  if  we  were  certainly  right,  is  evident  from 
the  express  injunctions  of  the  apostles  to  the  contrary.  We  are 


1  1  Cor.  5:  1 1. 

This  version  after  much  examination  seems  to  the  writer  the  true 
one.  It  is  sustained  by  three-fourths  of  the  best  critics,  such  as  Mi- 
chaelis,  Schleusner,  Wahl,  De  Wette,Stolrz,  Heumann,  Van  Ess,  Sei¬ 
ler,  etc.  But  should  we  even  adopt  the  common  version,  the  passage 
is  inapplicable,  as  the  context  does  not  decide  what  errors  the  apos¬ 
tle  considered  heresies.  .  r 

3  Matt.  18:  17. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


71 


commanded  to  “  receive  him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  (him  who, 
in  our  judgment,  is  in  error  on  some  points)  ;  but  not  to  doubt¬ 
ful  disputations  (not  for  th'e  purpose  of  disputing  about  his  scru¬ 
ples,  or  deciding  on  them).1  Again,  “  Let  every  one  be  fully 
persuaded  in  his  own  mind.”  Again,  “  Why  dost  thou  judge 
(condemn)  thy  brother  ?  or  why  dost  thou  set  at  nought  thy 
brother?  for  we  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of 
Christ.2  Paul  warns  Timothy  against  “  doting  about  questions 
and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  come  envy,  strifes,  railings,  evil 
surmisings  (unjust  suspicions),  perverse  disputings  of  men  of 
corrupt  minds,”  etc.3  Again,  “  Of  these  things  put  them  in 
remembrance,  charging  them  before  the  Lord,  that  they  strive 
not  about  words  to  no  profit,  but  to  the  subverting  of  the  hear¬ 
ers.”  And  again,  “  Follow  charity,  peace,  with  them  that  call 
on  the  Lord  out  of  a  pure  heart ;  But  foolish  and  ( uncudeuovg ) 
untaught  questions  ( which  had  not  been  decided  by  the  apos¬ 
tles)  avoid,  knowing  that  they  do  gender  strifes.”4 

We  are  therefore  commanded  on  the  one  hand  to  “  cut  off 
those  antichrists  who  preach  another  gospel,”  and  on  the  other, 
not  to  judge  (pass  sentence,  or  condemn)  him  whom,  on  the 
whole,  we  regard  as  a  brother  ;  but  to  receive  him  and  to  avoid 
foolish  and  untaught  questions ,  questions  not  clearly  deci¬ 
ded  in  Scripture.  If  we  unite  these  two  precepts  into  one, 
they  will  be  equivalent,  we  think,  to  the  general  command  to 
discipline  men  for  denying  what  is  certainly  an  essential  part  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  but  not  for  any  doctrine  about  which  ac¬ 
knowledged  Christians  differ,  and  which  is  therefore  doubtful. 
For  we  suppose  the  following  rule  will  be  found  a  fair,  safe  and 
tangible  one  :  That  all  those  doctrines  which  the  great  body  of 
all  Christians  whom  God  has  owned  by  his  grace  and  Spirit , 
and  who  have  free  access  to  the  Scriptures ,  agree  in  finding  in 
them ,  are  certainly  taught  there  ;  and  all  those  points  on  which 
they  differ  are  less  certain ,  are  doubtful.  This  rule  is  based 
on  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  that  if  the  Scriptures  are  a 
revelation  from  God  to  man,  they  must  on  all  points  necessary 
to  salvation,  be  intelligible  to  all  impartial  and  competent  inqui¬ 
rers  ;  and  that  true  Christians,  who  are  engaged  in  daily  efforts 
to  serve  God,  and  who  bear  in  their  hearts  and  exhibit  in  their 
lives,  the  evidences  of  God’s  grace  and  Spirit,  are  the  most  sin- 


1  Rom.  14:  1. 

4  2  Tim.  2:  14,  23. 


2  14:  5—10 


3  1  Tim.  6:  4. 


72 


Dr.  Schmucker's  Appeal. 

cere,  impartial  and  competent  inquirers  into  his  word.  Now 
we  suppose,  that  the  great  mass  of  true  Christians  in  our  land 
will  he  com  pi  en ended  not  in  any  one  sect,  but  in  the  aggregate 
of  all  the  orthodox  protestant  denominations. 

Again,  the  judgment  of  each  denomination,  as  to  the  most  im- 
poitant  points  ol  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures  is  confessedly 
set  forth  by  the  creed  which  it  professes.  Hence  those  doc¬ 
trines  which  are  taught  in  common  by  the  creeds  of  all  the  so- 
called  oithodox  Protestant  denominations,  and  as  far  as  thus 
unitedly  taught,  may  be  safely  regarded  as  clearly  revealed  in  the 
book  of  God.  W e  limit  the  rule  to  Protestant  denominations,  be¬ 
cause  in  the  papal  sect,  the  mass  of  the  people  have  not  access 
to  the  word  ol  God,  and  believe  the  doctrines  of  their  creed 
simply  because  their  church  teaches  them.  It  is  limited  to 
oithodox  denominations,  because  there  are  unhappily  some  in 
our  land  professing  to  receive  the  Scriptures,  but  in  reality  re¬ 
jecting  their  divine  inspiration,  and,  as  we  are  constrained  to 
believe,  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  preaching 
another  Christ.  Let  it  not  be  supposed,  that  this  rule  resem¬ 
bles  that  of  the  Romanists,  who  explain  the  Scriptures  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  pretended  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers  ;  for 
those  fathers  instead  of  constituting  the  great  mass  or  majority 
of  believers  in  any  age,  were  not  one  in  a  million.  Nor  could 
the  mass  of  believers  in  any  age  fall  under  our  rule,  unless  they 
had  free  and  uncontrolled  access  to  the  Scriptures,  either  in  the 
original,  if  its  languages  were  vernacular  to  them,  or  in  a  faith¬ 
ful  version.  It  could  therefore  apply  only  to  the  Protestant 
chinches,  and  to  the  churches  of  the  first  few  centuries  before 
ecclesiastical  enactments  interfered  with  the  free  unbiassed 
use  of  the  Scriptures.  And  concerning  the  opinions  of  the  mass 
of  believers  in  the  earlier  centuries,  we  know  next  to  nothing, 
except  that  they  received  the  so-called  Apostles5  creed. 

We  aie^  thus  conducted,  by  Scripture  and  reason,  to  the 
aaoption  ol  the  second  feature  of  the  proposed  catholic  union, 
namely,  not  to  discipline  a  brother ,  whose  deportment  is  un¬ 
exceptionable,  and  who  conforms  to  our  existing  regulations  of 
government,  discipline  and,  worship,  for  holding  a  doctrine  be¬ 
lieved  by  any  acknowledged:  orthodox  denomination.  This 
practice,  so  far  as  the  Scriptures  enable  us  to  judge,  accords 
with  that  of  the  apostolic  churches ;  it  certainly  agrees  with  the 
practice  of  the  church  in  the  first  four  centuries  after  the  apos¬ 
tles,  for  they  disciplined  only  for  the  denial  of  a  doctrine  taught 


73 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

in  the  Apostles’,  and  afterwards  in  the  Nicene  creed,  all  of 
which  are  received  by  every  orthodox  denomination.  Not  one 
of  the  distinguishing  points  on  which  Protestants  differ,  is  deter¬ 
mined  in  either  the  Apostles’  or  the  Nicene  creed,  and  therefore 
it  is  indisputable,  that  any  one  of  these  denominations  would 
have  been  received  and  retained  (not  disciplined)  by  all  other 
portions  of  the  so-called  universal  (catholic)  church. 

And  why  ought  not  the  different  branches  of  the  Protestant 
church  to  adopt  this  rule  ?  That  persons  differing  on  these  dis¬ 
puted  doctrinal  points,  but  agreeing  in  their  views  of  church 
government,  discipline  and  mode  of  worship,  can  live  harmo¬ 
niously  in  the  same  church,  and  cooperate  cordially  in  the  duties 
and  privileges  of  church  members,  is  not  a  matter  of  mere  spec¬ 
ulative  conjecture.  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  in  every  denomi¬ 
nation  there  are  not  a  few  among  the  pious  laity,  living  and  cor¬ 
dially  cooperating  in  the  same  church,  who  differ  from  each 
other,  as  much  as  the  creeds  of  the  several  denominations  differ. 

*  The  writer  has  personally  known  many  instances  of  this  kind  in 
the  Lutheran,  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  churches,  and  has  no 
doubt  that  cases  equally  frequent  occur  in  the  other  denomina¬ 
tions.  If  this  can  be  done  by  pious  laymen,  there  is  no  reason 
why  pious  ministers  could  not  live  together  in  the  same  unity  of 
spirit,  notwithstanding  minor  differences  in  doctrinal  views ;  es¬ 
pecially  if  they  were  taught  in  their  theological  course,  them¬ 
selves  to  regard  as  less  important  the  several  points  which 
separate  the  orthodox  churches,  and  in  their  public  exercises  to 
lay  the  more  stress  on  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
scheme.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  Episcopal  church  minis¬ 
ters  of  different  doctrinal  views  exist  and  labor  in  friendship. 
“  Perhaps”  (says  the  liberal  and  amiable  author  of  ‘  Hints  on 
Catholic  Union,’1)  “  there  is  not  a  shade  or  variety  of  theological 
opinion,  within  the  circle  of  evangelical  truth,  that  has  not  had 
an  advocate  among  the  divines  of  the  Church  of  England.”  In 
the  Presbyterian  church  also  a  large  number  of  ministers  have 
believed  in  general  atonement,  whilst  others,  agreeably  to  their 
Confession,  consider  the  atonement  as  limited.  Yet  these 
brethren  have  generally  lived  together  and  cooperated  in  peace 
until  recently.  At  present,  for  reasons,  into  which  our  design 
does  not  urge  us  to  inquire,  these  differing  brethren  in  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  church  are  engaged  in  warm  disputations,  whilst  among 

1  See  Hints  on  Catholic  Union,  by  a  Presbyter  of  t lie  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  p.  46.  New  York,  1836. 


74 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


our  Episcopal  brethren;  the  same  differences  still  exist  and  are 
regarded  with  Christian  charity.  And  why  should  a  Presbyte¬ 
rian,  who  regards  a  dissentient  Episcopalian  or  a  Methodist  as  a 
brother,  condemn  the  member ofhis  ownchurcb  or  ministry,  who 
holds  similar  views  ?  Why  should  any  man  regard  that  as  heresy 
in  a  Pi  esbyterian,  which  in  a  Methodist  or  Episcopalian,  is,  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  own  judgment,  consistent  with  Christian  character,  and 
comports  with  a  life  of  acknowledged  piety  and  usefulness  ?  The 
only  conceivable  difference  is,  that  the  one  may  be  regarded  as  vi¬ 
olating  the  obligation  of  his  creed,  whilst  the  others  do  not  violate 
it.  This  is  indeed  highly  important  to  the  character  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual.  No  man  should  teach  a  doctrine  which  he  believes  to  be 
inconsistent  with  the  creed  of  his  church,  if  he  pledged  himself 
to  uphold  every  individual  doctrine  contained  in  it,  °and  if  his 
promise  was  not,  as  some  suppose  it  to  be,  a  promise  to  receive 
the  confession  as  teaching  the  general  system  of  truth  revealed 
in  Scripture.  If  there  be  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  na¬ 
ture  of  the  subscription  to  a  creed,  whether  it  binds  to  every  in¬ 
dividual  doctrine,  or  only  to  the  system  of  truths  contained  in  it  * 
this  point  ought  doubtless  to  be  first  settled.1  Whilst  it  remains 
under  dispute,  every  attempt  at  discipline  will  be  encumbered 
by  a  double  issue.  The  friends  of  liberal  construction  will  un¬ 
dertake  to  prove,  that  they  have  not  abandoned  the  creed 
(meaning  its  general  system  of  truth) ;  whilst  the  advocates  of 
rigid  construction  will  prove  that  they  have  not  adhered  to  eve- 


If  hao  been  asserted  on  the  authority  of  early  records  that  the 
principle  of  liberal  construction  was  adopted  near  the  origin  of  the 
Pieshytei  ian  church  in  this  country,  and  was  practised  on,  and  the 
fact  appears  to  be  established  by  the  testimony  of  President  Davies 
recently  published  in  the  “American  Quarterly  Register”  for  May 
1837,  p.  316.  In  an  extract  from  his  diary,  during  a  visit  to  England 
in  behalf  of  Princeton  College,  under  date  March  nineteenth,  1754,  we 
find  the  following  reply  given  by  Mr.  Davies  to  Mr.  Prior,  who  in- 
cjuiied,  whethei  the  Presbyterians  in  America  would  admit  any  per¬ 
son  to  the  ministry,  without  his  subscribing  the  Westminster  Confes¬ 
sion  .  I  replied  that  we  allowed  the  candidate  to  mention  his  objec¬ 
tions  against  any  article  in  the  Confession,  and  the  judicature  judged 
whether  the  articles  objected  against,  were  essential  to  Christianity  ; 
and  if.  they  judged  they  were  not,  they  would  admit  the  candidate 
notwithstanding  his  objections.  He  (Mr.  Prior)  seemed  to  think  that 

we  were  such  rigid  Calvinists  that  we  would  not  admit  an  Arminian 
to  communion.” 


Dr.  Schmuckcr’s  Appeal.  75 

ry  individual  doctrine,  and  will  expatiate  on  the  guilt  of  viola¬ 
ting  the  obligation  imposed  by  the  confession. 

Would  it  not  be  far  better  for  both  parties  to  inquire  whether 
they  have  a  right  from  apostolic  precept  or  example ,  to  hind 
either  themselves  or  others  to  more  than  the  fundamental  truths 
of  Christian  doctrine ,  and  to  as  many  points  of  government, 
discipline  and  worship  as  are  actually  necessary  to  harmonious 
cooperation  ?  If  the  views  of  this  Appeal  be  correct,  then  sub¬ 
scription  to  transfundamental  doctrinal  creeds  is  always  wrong, 
and  if  wrong  then  it  ceases  to  be  binding  so  soon  as  its  impro¬ 
priety  is  seen,  and  ought  to  be  retracted,  whilst  the  creed  should 
be  reduced  to  fundamentals,  or  subscription  be  required  only 
“  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible  as  contained  in  the 
creed.”  For,  after  the  failure  of  extended  creeds  to  produce 
unanimity,  and  after  their  tendency  to  cause  strife,  and  divide 
the  body  of  Christ,  have  become  as  certain  as  any  other  matter 
ol  historical  record ;  why  should  protestants  continue  to  bind 
either  themselves,  or  others  to  them  ?  Especially,  as  such  ex¬ 
tended  creeds  were  unheard  of  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
for  hundreds  of  years  after  ?  If  the  same  word  of  God  which 
we  now  possess,  when  aided  by  the  oral  instruction  and  the 
personal  example  of  the  apostles,  could  not  produce  entire  una¬ 
nimity  among  the  primitive  Christians,  how  could  it  be  expected 
to  effect  more  at  the  present  time  ?  or,  why  should  we  require 
greater  unanimity  than  the  primitive  Christians  did,  as  a  term  of 
ecclesiastical  communion  ? 

So  long  as  there  is  the  same  diversity  of  talent,  of  mental 
temperament,  of  habits  of  education,  and  of  supposed  interest, 
such  diversity  will  continue  to  exist.  Nor  ought  it  to  be  re¬ 
garded  as  necessarily  criminal,  or  as  inconsistent  with  Christian 
fellowship  and  fidelity.  Difference  on  non-essentials  has  no 
perceptible  influence  on  Christian  character  and  practice.  There 
are  differences  in  other  departments  of  human  knowledge,  and 
some  even  connected  with  religion,  of  equal  magnitude,  such  as 
the  value  of  a  death  bed  repentance,  the  mode  of  treating  awak¬ 
ened  sinners  and  of  conducting  revivals,  etc.,  and  yet,  because 
these  points  are  not  settled  in  the  creed,  men  agree  to  differ  on 
them,  their  peace  and  harmonious  cooperation  are  rarely  dis¬ 
turbed  for  any  length  of  time  ;  for  as  Luther  justly  remarked, 
alia  est  Concordia  fidei,  alia  charitatis.  Such  variety  of  opin¬ 
ions  on  non-fundamentals  moreover,  may  even  exert  a  salutary 
tendency,  may  stimulate  men  to  inquiry  and  peaceful  discussion. 


76 


Dr.  SchmucJcer’s  Appeal. 


thus  keeping  alive  a  healthful  spirit  of  investigation,  and  pre¬ 
venting  the  indifference,  which  some  have  apprehended,  might 
result  from  the  absence  of  extensive  creeds. 

Under  the  operation  of  this  feature  of  union,  full  liberty  of  in¬ 
vestigation  would  be  allowed  within  the  bounds  of  fundamen¬ 
tals,  without  the  danger  of  exclusion  from  house  and  home,  or 
pastoral  charge.  And,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suspect  that  that 
system  which  cannot  trust  itself  to  the  full  and  unbiassed  influ¬ 
ence  of  God’s  word  without  the  artificial  aid  of  creeds,  and 
those  peculiarities  which  need  to  be  instilled  into  the  youthful 
mind  more  explicitly  than  the  Bible  teaches  them,  lest  they  be 
lost,  are  erroneous,  are  not  worth  keeping;  and  that  permitting 
them  to  become  obsolete,  would  only  advance  the  unity  of  the 
church  ?  Every  disciple  of  Christ  ought  to  be  willing  to  see 
the  peculiarities  of  his  own  denomination  cast  into  the  crucible 
of  God’s  word,  and  exposed  to  the  unrestrained  action  of 
Bible  truth  and  Bible  principles,  in  order  that  the  truth  of  God 
might  thus  be  gradually  developed  in  its  full  purity  over  the 
whole  church,,  the  breaches  in  Zion’s  walls  be  healed,  and  one 
peculiar  people  zealous  of  good  works,  be  raised  up  to  God. 
The  writer  takes  pleasure  in  being  able  to  cite  in  support  of  his 
position  the  opinion  of  that  distinguished  servant  of  God,  Cal¬ 
vin,  whose  zeal  against  fundamental  errorists  will  not  be  dispu¬ 
ted,  but  whose  magnanimous  liberality  in  reference  to  all  but 
fundamentals,  appears  to  be  but  little  known  and  still  less  ap¬ 
preciated.  He  even  goes  much  further  than  our  plan  of  union 
proposes,  and  dissuades  from  schism,  if  a  church  neglect  to  dis¬ 
cipline  for  the  grossest  immoralities  ;  whilst  our  plan  proposes,  * 
that  in  regard  to  government,  discipline  and  mode  of  worship, 
each  one  shall,  as  heretofore,  connect  himself  with  that  branch 
of  the  church,  whose  forms  he  believes  best  calculated  to  ad¬ 
vance  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer.  His  language,  in  a  let¬ 
ter  to  Farrel,  is  this:  “I  only  contended  for  this,  that  they 
should  not  create  schism  in  any  church ,  which ,  although  very 
corrupt  in  morals ,  and  infected  with  strange  doctrines,  had 
not  entirely  departed  from  that  doctrine ,  on  which  Paul  in¬ 
forms  us  the  church  of  Christ  is  founded.”  1  And  it  was  in 


1  Hoc  unum  contendebam,  ne  schistnate  scinJerent  qualemcumque 
ecclesiam  :  quae,  utcu'nque  esset  corruptissima  moribus,  doctrinis 
etiam  oxoticis  infecta,  non  tameii  desciverit  penitus  ab  ea  doctrina  qua 
ecclesiam  Christi  fundari  docet  Paulus.  Calv.  Epist;  Opp.  §  JX.  p.  6. 


77 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

the  same  spirit  of  liberality  that,  as  he  himself  informs  us,  he 
subscribed  the  Augsburg  or  Lutheran  Confession  of  faith,  and 
declares  the  points  of  difference  between  the  Protestant  church¬ 
es  of  his  day,  an  insufficient  cause  for  division.1 

Third  Feature.  Let  a  creed  be  adopted  including  only 
the  doctrines  held  in  common  by  all  the  orthodox  Christian  de¬ 
nominations,  to  be  termed  the  Apostolic,  Protestant  Confession, 
and  let  this  same  creed  be  used,  by  all  denominations  as  the 
term  o  f  sacramental,  ecclesiastical  and  ministerial  communion. 
To  this  each  denomination  would  add  its  present  Formularies 
lor  government,  discipline  and  mode  of  worship,  which  it  might 
also  change  or  amend  from  time  to  time,  at  its  own  option,  and 
in  its  own  way.  Each  denomination  might  also  use  its  former 
creed  as  a  book  of  instruction  to  whatever  extent  it  saw  proper. 

The  new  creed  should  consist  of  two  parts,  a)  The  so-called 
Apostles’  Creed.2  This  little  formulary  has  already  been 
adopted  by  four  fifths  of  the  Protestant  church,  by  the  Luther¬ 
ans  in  the  different  kingdoms  of  Europe,  by  the  Episcopalians 
in  Europe  and  America,  and  by  the  Presbyterian  church  in  this 
country  and  probably  also  in  Great  Britain.  The  doctrines  con¬ 
tained  in  it  are  embraced  by  every  orthodox  Protestant  denomi¬ 
nation  on  earth.  The  adoption  of  this  confession  would  estab¬ 
lish  the  doctrinal  idenity  of  the  confederated  churches,  with  that 
of  the  apostolic  age,  and  of  the  first-  four  centuries  ;  which  is  a 
matter  of  no  small  moment  in  the  popular  mind,  and  has  been  too 
much  neglected  by  Protestants,  b)  The  second  part  should  be 
styled  The  United  Protestant  Confession ,  consisting  of  a  selec¬ 
tion  of  those  articles  from  the  creeds  of  the  prominent  Protes¬ 
tant  churches,  in  which  all  can  agree,  taking  but  one  article  on 
each  subject.  As  each  of  these  churches  acknowledge  the 
Christian  character  of  the  others,  they  all  virtually  admit,  that  the 
creed  of  each  church  contains  every  thing  essential  on  the  doc¬ 
trine  which  any  given  article  treats ;  whilst  each  one  believes 
the  creed  of  the  other  to  contain  minor  errors  on  some  points. 
Now,  if  a  selection  can  be  made  from  all  the  creeds,  which  will 
contain  an  article  on  every  topic  necessary  to  be  introduced, 
and  yet  not  include  any  peculiar  aspects  of  doctrines  on  which 
the  parties  differ ;  all  denominations  can  evidently  adopt  it; 
for  they  fully  believe  it ,•  and  have  already  acknowledged  its 

1  Epist.  Schalingio,  p.  ]  13.  Farello,  p.  9.  Mason’s  Plea,  p.  182, 183. 

2  For  a  copy  of  this  Creed,  See  page  121. 

11 


78 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

Christian  character  by  acknowledging  as  brethren  those  who 
profess  it.  And  if  in  order  to  complete  such  a  creed,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  strike  out  some  minor  specifications  from  any 
article  of  the  existing  creeds,  in  order  to  make  it  unexceptiona¬ 
ble  to  all  parties,  it  is  evident,  that  if  nothing  be  added,  all  can 
still  adopt  it,  because  the  thing  erased  must  be  non-essential,  as 
it  is  one  on  which  the  confederated  denominations  differ. 

It  might  be  thought  preferable  by  some,  that  a  general  coun¬ 
cil  of  the  liberal-minded  of  all  denominations  should  be  called  to 
deliberate  and  form  an  original  creed,  covering  the  common 
ground  of  the  Protestant  churches.  But  the  testimony  of  ex¬ 
perience  is  not  strongly  in  favor  of  the  probable  results  of  such 
a  convention.  The  whole  field  of  theological  topics  would 
have  to  be  passed  over,  and  the  discussions  entered  on  anew 
which  were  passed  through  in  the  original  formation  of  the  sev¬ 
eral  creeds.  But  by  the  far  simpler  plan  here  proposed,  all 
these  difficulties  are  obviated.  We  have  in  the  creed  of  each 
denomination  the  result  of  its  deliberations  on  all  these  points. 
Taking  these  as  the  separate  voices  of  the  different  churches, 
we  can  by  the  principles  above  suggested,  without  difficulty 
frame  one  creed,  in  which  these  voices  shall  unitedly  be  heard 
proclaiming  the  common  faith  of  all  God’s  people.  As  the 
method  proposed  neither  requires  nor  admits  the  composition  of 
a  single  original  sentence,  it  will  not  be  thought  presumptuous  in 
the  writer  to  attempt  the  application  of  his  own  rules.  He  has 
accordingly  formed  such  a  Protestant  confession,  and  appended 
it  to  this  Appeal. 

These  two  parts  would  constitute  the  Apostolic,  Protestant 
Confession,  required  by  the  third  feature  of  the  proposed  union. 
The  necessity  and  advantages  of  such  a  creed  are  evident. 

1 .  In  order  to  keep  heretics  out  of  the  church  of  God.  The 
duty  of  the  church  to  exclude  from  her  communion  all  who  de¬ 
ny  a  fundamental  doctrine,  is  admitted  by  all  whose  union  is 
contemplated  in  this  plan.  The  apostle  John  expressly  de¬ 
clares,  “  If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doc¬ 
trine,”  (concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  his  real  and  not  mere¬ 
ly  feigned  appearance  in  the  flesh,  as  the  gnostics  asserted  v.  7, 
and  1  John  4:  2)  receive  him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid 
him  God  speed  ;  for  he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  partaker 
of  his  evil  deeds.”  1  Now  in  order  to  bring  men  to  the  test, 

}  2  John  10,  11. 


Dr.  Schmucker's  Appeal. 


79 


whose  fundamental  soundness  is  suspected,  it  is  absolutely  ne¬ 
cessary1  to  have  a  creed,  either  written  or  nuncupatory.  But 
whilst  the  principle  of  both  is  the  same,  a  written  creed  has 
many  confessed  advantages,  and  must  necessarily  constitute  one 
feature  of  our  catholic  union.  And  having  thus  enlarged  the 
ground  of  Christian  forbearance,  and  confined  the  test  to  the 
truths  held  in  common  by  the  orthodox  churches,  the  utmost  . 
fidelity,  and  uncompromising  spirit  ought,  and  it  is  believed, 
would  be  displayed,  in  the  discipline  and  the  excommunication 
of  any  and  every  one,  who  denies  a  single  doctrine  actually 
taught  (not  by  inference)  in  the  common  creed.  One  princi¬ 
pal  cause  of  laxity  in  executing  discipline  for  doctrinal  devia¬ 
tions  from  the  different  creeds,  is  undoubtedly  the  conviction, 
derived  from  Scripture  and  reason,  that  the  errors  impugned  are 
too  trifling  to  deserve  discipline. 

2.  Such  a  creed  is  necessary ,  to  give  prominence  to  the  great, 
acknowledged  truths  of  Christianity. 

a)  It  has  been  doubted  whether  it  is  possible  to  give  special 
prominence  to  the  grand  doctrines  of  Christianity,  without  be¬ 
coming  incoherent,  or  illogical,  or  vapid  ;  but  its  practicability 
has  often  been  demonstrated  by  facts,  and  ought  therefore  not 
to  be  disputed.  The  writer  many  years  ago,  for  some  time 
attended  the  preaching  in  the  college  chapel  at  Princeton, 
where  the  professors  of  the  Seminary  and  College  alternately 
officiated,  all  of  whom  were  Calvinists  ;  yet  he  rarely  heard  a 
sentiment  conflicting  with  Lutheranism,  and  very  rarely  heard 
the  peculiarities  of  any  sect  introduced.  The  reason  is,  that 
those  excellent  men,  feeling  that  there  were  in  that  college, 
students  from  all  churches,  were  disposed  to  avoid  unnecessary 
offence,  and  yet  they  dwelt  on  the  whole  circle  of  undisputed 
Christian  doctrine.  None  who  heard  them  would  wish  more 


1  On  this  subject  we  would  refer  the  reader  to  a  “  Lecture  on  Creeds 
and  Confessions ,”  by  Rev.  Dr.  Miller  of  Princeton,  containing  many 
very  sound  arguments  in  favor  of  their  indispensable  necessity  to  the 
purity  of  the  church.  Whether  the  author  would  consent  to  the 
modifications  of  the  subject  proposed  in  this  Appeal,  and  confine  the 
doctrinal  specifications  of  the  creed  to  the  common  ground  of  Protes¬ 
tantism,  we  know  not.  Yet  we  are  almost  led  to  hope  so  from  the 
fact  that  all  the  cases  adduced  by  him,  to  show  the  necessity  of  in¬ 
cluding  non-fundamental  matters  in  it,  are  cases  belonging  to  gov¬ 
ernment,  discipline  or  forms  of  worship,  on  which  this  plan  proposes 
that  the  sectarian  standards  may  be  retained. 


80 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

edifying,  practical  and  profitable  preaching.  The  volume  of 
Sermons  and  Addresses  by  Dr.  Green,  published  soon  after  he 
resigned  the  presidency  of  that  institution,  probably  contains 
some  of  the  sermons  then  delivered  by  him.  Of  that  volume, 
a  review  was  soon  after  published  in  the  Christian  Advocate’ 
and  the  writer  distinctly  recollects  that  the  reviewer  applauded 
the  unsectarian  character  of  the  discourses,  and  pronounced 
them  fiee  from  every  thing  to  which  Christians  of  any  religious 
denomination  could  with  propriety  object.  The  opinion  of  the 
reviewer  is  cited  because  the  writer  has  not  read  the  work,  and 
therefore  could  not  speak  for  himself.  As  indisputable  speci¬ 
mens  ol  most  excellent  religious  discussion  confined  to  the  un¬ 
disputed  truths  of  Christianity,  the  common  ground  of  the  or¬ 
thodox  churches,  we  may  cite  the  publications  of  the  American 
Tract  Society,  and  of  the  American  Sunday  School  Union. 
We  might  cite  the  Sermons  of  president  Davies,  Doddridge’s 
Rise  and  Progress  of  Religion  in  the  Soul,  Burder’s  Village 
Sermons,  and  a  number  of  other  invaluable  works  as  substan¬ 
tially  confined  to  the  grand,  cardinal  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
And  is  it  not  a  notorious  fact  that  these  and  other  similar  publi¬ 
cations,  are  the  works  which  have  exerted  the  greatest  influence 
in  producing  the  evangelical  spirit  and  enterprise  of  the  present 
day  ?  Has  not  the  blessed  Saviour  so  signally  blessed  these 
works,  above  all  others  of  a  sectarian  character,  as  specially  to 
encourage  their  multiplication,  not  indeed  so  as  to  exclude  oth¬ 
ers,  but  to  give  greater  prominence  to  these  ? 

.  k)  Prominence  ought  to  be  given  to  these  undisputed  doc¬ 
trines,  because  they  alone  are  certainly  true.  It  has  been 
stated,  that  the  aggregate  of  doctrines  believed  by  the  different 
orthodox  denominations  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  those 
that  are  believed  by  them  all,  and  those  which  are  believed  by 
some  and  disbelieved  by  others.  As  men  of  equal  piety,  talent 
and  learning  differ  in  respect  to  the  latter,  it  is  but  just  to  sup¬ 
pose,  that  they  are  not  so  clearly  revealed,  and  so  definitely  de¬ 
cided  by  Scripture,  as  those  points  which  all  agree  in  finding  in 
that  sacied  book.  And  as  they  are  not  so  clearly  revealed, 
they  cannot  be  essential  to  salvation,  nor  so  certain  in  themselves, 
if  our  knowledge  of  them  is  derived  from  revelation  alone. 

Moreover,  no  one  Protestant  sect  is  more  numerous  than  all 
the  otheis  together.  The  Lutheran  church,  which  is  by  far  the 
largest,  numbers  according  to  the  best  authorities,  a  population 
of  about  30,000,000,  whilst  the  whole  body  ol  Protestants 


Dr.  Schmuclcer’s  Appeal.  81 

amounts  to  about  70,000,000.  Hence,  it  is  evident  that  the 
peculiar,  distinguishing  doctrine  of  eacli  sect,  is  disbelieved  by 
the  majority  of  Protestants.  If  a  disputed  doctrine  be  common 
to  several  of  the  larger  sects,  it  then  has  a  majority  of  all  Pro¬ 
testants  in  its  favor,  and  the  probability  of  its  biblical  authority 
is  augmented.  But  those  doctrines  alone  can  be  regarded  as 
certainly  scriptural,  which  the  great  mass  of  all  enlightened, 
faithful,  acknowledged  Christians,  who  have  free  access  to  the 
Bible,  agree  in  finding  in  it.  These  undisputed  doctrines  alone, 
we  suppose,  can  be  essential  to  salvation.  For  it  is  acknow¬ 
ledged  by  each  sect,  that  persons  denying  its  distinguishing 
tenets,  do  exhibit  evidence  of  piety,  and  will  be  saved.  Hfcnce, 
uniting  this  judgment  of  all  the  sects,  Protestants  do  themselves 
acknowledge,  that  persons  will  be  saved  in  the  denial  of  each 
of  the  disputed  doctrines.  Hence,  none  but  the  undisputed 
tenets  are  in  fact  judged  by  Protestants  to  be  essential  to  sal¬ 
vation. 

If  these  views  be  correct,  all  Christian  teachers  should  accus¬ 
tom  themselves  to  distinguish  in  their  own  minds  between  the 
disputed  and  the  undisputed  doctrines  of  Christianity  ;  and  in 
their  instructions  they  ought  to  give  special  prominence  to  the 
latter.  Who  would  think  of  adopting  as  text-book  in  a  Col¬ 
lege,  an  author  on  Chemistry  or  Natural  Philosophy,  who  intro¬ 
duced  the  various  disputed  opinions  and  theories'  of  a  particular 
class  of  men,  which  he  regarded  as  true  ;  but  did  not  distin¬ 
guish  between  these  opinions,  and  those  facts  and  principles 
fully  established  and  admitted  by  all  ?  Let  us  go  one  step 
further,  and  suppose  the  peculiarities  referred  to  be  such  as  are 
regarded  as  erroneous  by  the  majority  of  chemists.  Such  a 
book  would  by  common  consent  be  considered  unsafe,  and  be 
pronounced  unphilosophical.  Yet  this  is  exactly  the  practice 
ol  all  the  different  denominations.  Their  standards  make  no 
distinction*  between  fundamental  and  nonfundamental  doctrines, 
between  those  which  are  certain,  and  not  disputed  by  any 
acknowledged  Christian  denomination,  and  those  which,  though 
believed  by  some,  are  disputed  and  disbelieved  by  others.  It 
would  certainly  be  conducive  to  Christian  union  and  sound 
Christian  knowledge,  if  the  distinction  between  disputed  and 
undisputed  doctrines  were  distinctly  made  by  including  the  latter 
only  in  the  public  creed,  leaving  the  former  as  subjects  of  ami¬ 
cable  difference,  and  as  occasions  to  exercise  that  forbearance 
required  by  the  apostle,  in  “  not  judging  our  brother.’’  For  if 


82 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


we  introduce  these  minor,  disputed  points  into  our  test,  and 
then  by  virtue  of  it,  drive  out  of  our  church  all  who  in  the  least 
differ  from  us,  where  is  there  any  room  for  exercising  Christian 
forbearance  to  a  “  brother  who  is  weak  in  the  faith.”  There 
will  be  none  such  left.  We  think  the  great  apostle  evidently 
contemplated  a  different  practice  in  the  church. 

c)  Prominence  should  be  •  given  to  the  undisputed  truths  of 
Christianity,  because  they  are  the  principal  means  which  effect  the 
good  accomplished  by  all  the  different  sects,  the  principal  means 
of  conversion,  sanctification  and  salvation.  Those  points  of  secta¬ 
rian  diversity  which  are  true,  (but  which  these  are,  no  man  can 
determine  with  absolute  certainty,)  are  doubtless  more  or  less 
connected  with  the  more  important  truths,  and  have  some  influ¬ 
ence  ;  yet  that  their  effect  is  comparatively  very  small,  is  mani¬ 
fest  from  the  fact,  that  the  Spirit’s  operations  have  been  ex¬ 
tended  to  all  these  several  denominations.  The  errors  of  sects 
have  not  destroyed  the  blessing  vouchsafed  on  the  undisputed 
truths  held  by  them,  nor  prevented  them  from  being  the  vehi¬ 
cle  of  salvation  to  thousands.  It  is  therefore  not  the  peculiari¬ 
ties  of  the  Lutherans,  the  Congregationalists,  the  Presbyterians, 
the  Episcopalians  or  Methodists,  which  do  the  good  accom¬ 
plished  by  these  churches,  but  that  amount  of  truth  held  in 
common  by  all.  Hence  this  amount  of  common  truth,  ought 
always  to  be  distinguished  from  the  “  doubtful  disputations,” 
and  especially  should  be  made  prominent  in  the  public  exercises 
of  the  sanctuary. 

d)  Such  a  creed  would  serve  as  a  bond  of  union ,  between  all 
true  Christians  over  the  whole  world.  Doctrine  is,  in  the 
judgment  of  mankind,  far  more  important  than  modes  of  gov¬ 
ernment.  It  is  diversity  of  doctrine,  even  on  minor  points, 
which  has  been  adopted  as  the  pretext  for  the  major  part  of 
the  divisions  and  contentions  among  Christians.  The  adoption 
of  the  same  creed  of  fundamentals  by  all,  without  ahy  altera¬ 
tion,  would  give  prominence  to  their  actual  agreement  in  essen¬ 
tial  doctrines,  and  thus  operate  as  a  bond  of  union  among 
Christians.  Those  denominations  whose  standards  approxi¬ 
mate  nearest  in  doctrine,  do  in  reality  cherish  and  exhibit  more 
fellow  feeling  than  others  who  agree  in  form  of  government,  but 
differ  materially  in  doctrine.  This  is  exemplified  in  the  inti¬ 
mate  union  and  cooperation  which  have  for  a  long  time  existed 
between  the  Congregational,  the  Presbyterian,  and  the  Low- 
Dutch  churches  of  our  land.  Yet  there  have  always  been  in 


Dr.  Schmuclcer’s  Appeal. 


8  3 


these  cooperating  and  affiliated  churches,  many  persons  who 
differed  from  each  other,  fully  as  much  as  the  creeds  of  any  two 
orthodox  churches  do.  The  contentions  in  the  church  about 
doctrine  arise  not  so  much  from  the  existence  of  some  diversity 
on  nonfundamentals,  as  from  the  fact,  that  the  majority  of  exis¬ 
ting.  creeds  hold  up  this  minor  diversity  to  constant  view,  and 
by  ranking  the  minor  and  disputed  points  among  the  doctrines 
which  are  the  test  of  ecclesiastical  communion,  they  perpetuate 
dissension  by  conveying  and  cherishing  the  impression,  that 
these  points  are  of  vital  moment.  A  fundamental  creed  would 
exert  directly  the  reverse  influence,  and  give  prominence  to 
those  doctrines  which  are  certainly  true,  and  are  not  disputed 
by  any  acknowleged  Christian  sect ;  whilst  it  would  imply  the 
minor  importance  of  the  disputed  points,  and  teach  men  to  ex¬ 
ercise  charity  in  regard  to  them.  This  was  the  character  of 
the  Apostles’  creed  and  the  Nicene  creed,  which  were  the  only 
creeds  used  in  the  first  three  centuries  of  the  church  as  tests ; 
and  their  influence  as  a  bond  of  union  among  Christians  was 
confessedly  very  great.  Now  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  all  the 
Protestant  churches  believe  every  sentence  in  these  creeds,  and 
can  subscribe  them  without  renouncing  a  single  opinion.  So 
far  as  the  sacred  records  inform  us,  the  apostles  themselves  did 
not  require  half  as  much  as  is  contained  in  these  creeds.  The 
doctrine  on  which  they  laid  most  stress,  is  “  that  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God.”  Every  spirit  that  confesses  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God.”  Whosoever  confesseth  that  Je¬ 
sus  Christ  is  the  son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him  and  he  in 
God.”  Paul  to  the  Romans1  expressly  says  :  “  This  is  the 
word  of  faith  which  we  preach,  that  if  thou  shalt  confess  with 
thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart,  that 
God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved. 

Concord  in  fundamentals  is  the  only  doctrinal  unity  which 
existed  among  primitive  Christians,  and  which  is  necessary. 
And  in  all  probability,  much  greater  unity  in  doctrine  never  will 
exist  in  the  church  on  earth,  unless  God  miraculously  produces 
more.  But  there  will  be  a  much  greater  degree  of  charity  and 
forbearance,  and  consequent  unity  of  spirit,  in  the  days  of  mil¬ 
lennial  glory,  and  the  freedom  of  investigation  and  practice  that 
are  advocated  in  this  appeal  and  would  be  secured  by  the  plan 
of  union  proposed,  will,  it  is  believed,  powerfully  tend  not  only 
to  produce  that  unity  of  spirit,  but  also  to  bring  about  some 


1  Romans  10:  8. 


84 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


greater  unity  in  nonfundamental  points,  and  perhaps  in  the 
forms  of  government  and  worship.  When  Christians  shall  have 
full  liberty  to  change  their  opinions  on  minor  topics,  without 
the  fear  of  prosecution,  or  the  apprehension  of  popular  or  ec¬ 
clesiastical  odium  as  the  primitive  Christians  had,  it  seems  nat¬ 
ural  to  expect,  that  they  will  form  their  opinions  more  exclu¬ 
sively  on  the  naked  evidences  of  the  truth  itself.  But  at  pre¬ 
sent,  the  avowal  of  a  change  of  opinion  on  some  points  of  sec¬ 
tarian  diversity,  is  in  some  Protestant  churches  connected  with 
such  formidable  inconveniences,  such  as  prosecution  for  heresy, 
removal  from  pastoral  charge,  odium  of  the  brethren  etc.,  that 
when  a  man,  and  especially  a  minister,  has  once  connected 
himself  with  any  denomination,  he  finds  it  very  difficult  to  en¬ 
gage  in  the  investigation  of  these  minor  points  of  his  own  or 
other  denominations  free  from  extraneous  bias.  It  may  be 
said,  that  good  men  ought  to  rise  above  these  influences,  and  be 
unbiassed  by  such  consequences ;  but  it  is  far  easier  to  inculcate, 
than  practise  this  good  advice. 

e)  Such  a  creed  might  also  be  regarded  as  a  standing  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  church  in  behalf  of  the  truth ,  and  against  error. 
Let  it  not  be  said,  that  it  would  contain  any  thing  which  a  por¬ 
tion  of  Christians  regard  as  error ;  for  it  is  to  embrace  only  those 
doctrines  which  all  the  so-called  orthodox  agree  in  finding  in 
Scripture.  Nor  can  it  in  justice  be  objected,  that  it  would  not 
be  explicit  or  ample  enough  ;  it  would  be  far  more  explicit  and 
five  times  as  ample  as  the  testimony  which  the  church  of  Christ 
during  the  first  four  centuries  ever  bore  in  this  way.  Nor  do 
wje  suppose,  that  any  satisfactory  reason  can  be  adduced  to 
show,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  one  part  of  the  church  to  bear  testi¬ 
mony  against  those  opinions  of  the  truth  of  which,  another  part 
are  “fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds  ”  and  thus  to  “  judge 
one  another,”  (Rom.  14:  1 — 8.)  or  that  any  good  has  ever  re¬ 
sulted  from  such  testimony. 

Fourth  Feature.  There  shoidd  be  free  sacramental ,  ec¬ 
clesiastical  and  ministerial  communion ,  among  the  confederated 
churches. 

The  first  of  these  elements,  namely  free  sacramental  com¬ 
munion,  may  be  said  already  to  exist  among  the  churches.  For 
by  it  is  not  intended,  that  the  members  of  any  branch  of  the 
Protestant  church  should  forsake  the  sacramental  ordinance  of 
the  house  jn  which  they  statedly  worship.  This  could  be  pro¬ 
ductive  only  of  confusion,  and  eventually  would  create  discord 


85 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

instead  of  union.  And,  the  writer  supposes,  that  throughout 
the  whole  of  this  plan  there  is  nothing  which  ought  to  create 
disturbance  or  unsettle  the  affairs  of  individual  congregations  of 
Christians.  But  when  members  of  one  church  are  present  at  a 
sacramental  celebration  in  another,  a  public  invitation  to  mem¬ 
bers  of  sister  churches  in  good  standing,  ought  always  to  be 
given,  as  it  happily  is  in  most  churches,  and  ought  to  be,  as  it 
now  generally  is,  accepted.  On  this  topic',  the  practice  of  the 
churches  already  coincides  with  our  plan,  and  no  alteration 
would  be  desired,  excepting  that  the  few  churches  which  have 
not  yet  given  this  public  invitation,  should  also  adopt  the  prac¬ 
tice  of  their  brethren. 

By  ecclesiastical  communion,  we  mean  that  a  certificate  of 
good  standing  in  any  one  church  should  be  a  certain  passport  for 
admission  to  regular  membership  in  any  other.  This  element 
also  may  be  said  already  to  exist  in  the  different  branches  of  the 
church.  Yet  its  real  import  is  not  always  understood,  nor  its 
legitimate  consequences  followed  out  in  practice.  Christians 
should  regard  themselves  as  members  of  the  church  universal  as 
well  as  of  any  particular  denomination.  Hence,  when  remov¬ 
ing  to  other  places,  although  they  naturally  and  properly  con¬ 
nect  themselves  with  their  own  denomination  if  there  be  a 
church  of  the  kind  in  the  place ;  yet  if  there  be  not,  they  ought 
to  connect  themselves  with  any  other  Christian  church  which 
comes  nearest  to  their  views  of  truth  and  duty,  and  in  which 
they  could  receive  and  communicate  the  greatest  amount  of  good. 
How  melancholy  is  it  that  persons,  professing  to  be  Chris¬ 
tians,  living  in  villages  and  neighborhoods  where  there  is  not  and 
cannot  be  a  church  of  their  denomination,  remain  ten  or  twenty 
years,  and  often  for  life  unconnected  with  the  disciples  of  the 
same  Redeemer  around  them,  on  account  of  difference  on  minor 
points  of  diversity.  How  still  more  distressing  the  thought  that 
ministers  of  that  blessed  Saviour  who  prayed,  that  all  his  disci¬ 
ples  might  “  be  one,”  should  sometimes  confirm  the  prejudices 
of  such  individuals  in  the  hope  of  some  ultimate  far  distant  gain 
to  their  sect  ! 

By  ministerial  communion,  we  would  mean  that  a  certificate 
of  good  standing  in  the  ministry  of  one  church,  ought  to  be  a 
passport  for  admission  to  the  ministerial  ranks  of  any  other 
church,  if  connected  with  a  credible  profession  of  attachment  to 
the  standards  of  government,  discipline  and  form  of  worship  in 
the  other;  and  if  the  judicature  applied  to,  believe  the  applicant 

12 


86 


Dr.  Schmucker'  $  Appeal. 


possessed  of  the  qualifications,  gifts  and  graces  required  by  said 
standards,  and  calculated  to  be  useful  in  the  midst  of  them. 
This  feature  also  exists  in  the  practice  of  most  of  the  churches. 
It  is  not  at  all  unusual  for  ministers  of  the  Congregational,  Presby¬ 
terian,  and  Low  Dutch  churches  to  transfer  their  relations.  Be¬ 
tween  the  Lutheran  and  the  Moravian  churches  in  this  country 
the  same  is  the  case.  Several  of  our  most  respected  and  use¬ 
ful  ministers  were  trained  in  the  church  of  the  United  Brethren 
and  transferred  their  relations  to  our  larger  and  more  destitute 
Zion.  Ministers  coming  with  good  credentials  from  the  Evan¬ 
gelical  church  in  Germany,  apply  indifferently  either  to  the 
Lutheran  or  German  Reformed  church  in  this  country,  and  are 
received  by  both.  As  the  spirit  of  Christian  union  increases,  we 
suppose  these  cases  of  transfer  will  probably  multiply  ;  and  that 
it  will  cease  in  any  case  to  be  odious  for  a  minister,  at  any  time 
of  life,  to  transfer  his  relations  to  another  church  either  from 
want  of  employment  in  his  own,  or  because  on  more  mature  ex¬ 
amination,  or  observation  of  their  practical  effects,  he  believes 
the  forms  of  the  latter  more  scriptural  or  better  calculated  to  ad¬ 
vance  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

Ministerial  communion  also  implies  the  mutual  acknowledge¬ 
ment  of  each  other’s  official  character  by  the  clergy  of  the  con¬ 
federated  churches.  On  this  point  it  may  be  thought  some  dif¬ 
ficulty  would  exist  in  the  minds  of  some  of  our  Episcopal  breth¬ 
ren.  This  difficulty,  if  it  exist  at  all,  must  be  confined  to  the 
high-church  party,  and  does  not  embarrass  those  who  embrace 
episcopacy,  not  from  the  belief  of  its  scriptural  authority,  but  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  ;  and  of  this  class  far  the  largest  por¬ 
tion  of  that  church  has  always  been.  To  this  class  have  belong¬ 
ed  archbishop  Whitgift,  Dr.  Willet,  bishops  Bilson,  Morton, 
Jewell,  Croft,  Burnet,  Dr.  Whitaker,  archbishops  Usher,  and 
Tillotson,  Drs.  Stillingfleet,  and  Hawies,  Sir  Peter  King,  and 
the  venerable  Dr.  White,  late  bishop  of  the  Episcopal  church 
in  Pennsylvania,  as  well  as,  if  we  mistake  not,  the  great  mass 
of  Episcopal  divines  and  laity  in  this  country.  In  a  pamphlet 
of  the  last  named  respectable  author,  published  many  years  ago, 
principally  to  recommend  a  temporary  departure  from  the  line 
of  episcopal  succession,  on  the  ground  that  bishops  could  not 
then  be  had,  he  uses  this  language  :  “  Now  if  even  those  who 
hold  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,  conceive  the  obligation  to 
it  not  to  be  binding,  when  that  idea  would  be  destructive  of 
public  worship  ;  much  more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


87 


venerate  and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible, 
but  without  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the  au¬ 
thor  believes  to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episco¬ 
palians  in  America,  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favor 
unquestionably  the  sense  of  the  church  of  England,  and  as  he 
believes  the  opinion  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates  for  pie - 
ety ,  virtue  and  abilities .”  But  we  have  no  doubt,  that  even 
our  high-church  brethren  do  in  spirit  (though  not  in  form)  ad¬ 
mit  the  ministerial  character  of  other  clergy  ;  and  we  take  plea¬ 
sure  in  being  able  to  cite  the  opinion  of  Dr.  H.  U.  Onderdonk, 
bishop  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  Pennsylvania  in  confirmation 
of  our  belief.  There  will  therefore  be  little  if  any  difficulty 
from  this  source.  See  his  Tract  on  “  Episcopacy  tested  by 
Scripture,”  p.  6. 

F ifth'  F eature.  In  all  matters  not  relating  to  the  govern¬ 
ment ,  discipline  and  forms  of  worship  of  individual  churches , 
but  pertaining  to  the  common  cause  of  Christianity ,  let  the 
principle  of  cooperation  regardless  of  sect,  be  adopted  so  far 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  admit  and  as  fast  as  the  views  of 
the  parties  will  allow.  The  Scriptures  present  us  with  no  ex¬ 
ample  of  regular  organization  for  extensive  benevolent  opera¬ 
tions.  The  church  is  thus  left  to  choose  in  view  of  the  princi¬ 
ples  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  results  of  her  own  progres¬ 
sive  experience.  The  forms  of  Christian  associated  agency  in 
the  benevolent  enterprises  of  our  day,  are  usually  distinguished 
as  voluntary  and  ecclesiastical.  This  designation,  however, 
seems  not  to  be  entirely  accurate  ;  for  the  ecclesiastical  are  also 
in  one  sense  voluntary,  and  the  voluntary  are  ecclesisastical,  in¬ 
asmuch  as  they  are  conducted  by  members  of  the  Christian 
church.  More  properly  at  least  in  reference  to  the  subject  un¬ 
der  discussion,  they  might  be  distinguished  as  catholic  and 
denominational.  Now  as  the  denominational  are  based  on  the 
principle  of  sect,  which  we  have  found  so  detrimental  to  the 
Redeemer’s  kingdom ;  it  is  evident  that  those  who  would  labor 
for  this  unity  and  aid  in  accomplishing  the  Saviour’s  prayer, 
should  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case  admits,  prefer  those  cath¬ 
olic  institutions,  in  which  such  as  profess  to  be  brethren  are 
found  acting  out  their  profession.  That  these  catholic  institu¬ 
tions  exert  a  most  benign  influence  in  mitigating  the  rigors  of 
sectarian  asperity  and  in  knitting  together  in  love  the  hearts  of 
those  engaged  in  them,  can  be  doubted  by  no  one  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  American  Bible,  Tract,  Education  and 


I 


88 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


Missionary  Societies.  That  they  are  at  least  as  efficient  as  the 
denominational  organizations,  and  have  enjoyed  at  least  as  signal 
evidences  of  the  divine  favor,  will  also  not  be  disputed.  If  the 
parent  or  national  societies  be  supposed  to  have  too  great  a  con¬ 
centration  of  power,  let  coordinate  branches  be  multiplied  and 
be  as  nearly  independent  of  the  parent  institution  as  experience 
may  prove  to  be  desirable,  and  each  branch  mainly  do  the  work 
within  its  own  bounds.  Yet  the  branches  also  should  be  catho¬ 
lic  in  their  structure,  should  embrace  all  such  individuals  and 
congregational  societies  within  their  designated  bounds,  as  are 
willing  to  cooperate  among  the  different  denominations. 

But  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  denominational  societies  must 
of  necessity  be  wholly  sectarian  in  their  operations.  They  are 
so  only  when  their  funds  are  applied  exclusively  to  the  propa¬ 
gation  of  Christianity  connected  with  the  sectarian  peculiarities 
of  the  church  with  which  they  are  connected  ;  when  beneficia¬ 
ries  are  selected  exclusively  from  the  members  of  that  denomi¬ 
nation  ;  and  are  sustained  only  when  having  in  view  the  minis¬ 
try  in  that  church.  The  spirit  of  catholic  union  leads  us  to 
rejoice  at  the  progress  of  the  Master’s  kingdom  in  any  of  its  ac¬ 
knowledged  forms,  and  to  be  willing  to  aid  an  individual  to  labor 
in  any  portion  of  the  Lord’s  vineyard,  rather  than  that  he  should 
not  enter  the  vineyard  at  all.  Let  those,  therefore,  who  prefer 
denominational  societies,  and  desire  to  promote  the  unity  of 
Christ’s  body,  adopt  the  catholic  principles  of  action,  and  enter 
into  some  rules  of  cooperation  and  non-interference  with  the 
other  societies,  and  although  not  so  entirely  favorable  to  Cathol¬ 
icism  as  the  purely  catholic  institutions,  they  would  be  hailed 
by  the  friends  of  union  as  fellow-laborers  in  the  common  cause 
of  apostolic  Catholicism. 

In  addition  to  the  superior  tendency  to  union  in  the  catholic 
or  voluntary  associations,  they  enable  individual  Christians 
and  congregations  in  their  primary  capacity,  themselves  to  ap¬ 
propriate  their  funds  immediately  to  such  purposes  as  they  pre¬ 
fer,  without  the  intervention  of  ecclesiastical  bodies.  This  may 
lead  Christians  generally  to  feel  their  responsibility  more  sensi¬ 
bly,  to  inquire  into  the  merits  of  different  Christian  enterprises 
more  fully,  and  thus  to  become  more  deeply  interested  in  them. 

In  order  the  more  perfectly  to  secure  to  the  catholic  associa¬ 
tions  their  ecclesiastical  and  orthodox  character,  it  might  not  be 
amiss  for  the  parent  institutions  and  primary  branches  to  incor¬ 
porate  in  their  constitutions  an  acknowledgement  of  the  Apos- 


89 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 

tolic  Protestant  Confession ,  requiring  a  subscription  to  it  from 
all  their  principal  executive  officers,  their  beneficiaries  and  their 
missionaries  both  foreign  and  domestic.  These  societies  are 
even  now  amply  secured  on  this  point  by  their  regulations, 
which  require,  that  every  beneficiary  shall  be  member  of  some 
Christian  church,  and  that  every  missionary  sent  either  into  the 
domestic  or  foreign  field,  shall  be  in  regular  connection  and  good 
standing  in  the  ministry  of  some  orthodox  denomination.  Still 
as  the  proposed  creed  is  a  catholic  one,  there  would  be  a  con- 
gruity  in  its  distinctive  acknowledgement  by  catholic  societies, 
and  it  would  tend  to  give  still  greater  prominence  to  the  com¬ 
mon  faith. 

Sixth  Feature.  The  Bible  should  as  much  as  possible  be 
made  the  text-book  in  all  religious  and  theological  instruction. 
It  is  incontrovertible  that  in  consequence  of  the  great  abundance 
even  of  good  uninspired  works,  the  book  of  God  in  its  naked 
form  just  as  its  author  made  it,  receives  less  attention  than  it 
merits.  We  would  not,  of  course,  object  to  elementary  books 
for  the  instruction  of  children  and  youth  ;  yet  it  seems  desira¬ 
ble,  that  they  contain  only  the  common  ground  of  Christian 
doctrine.  Many  of  the  books,  employed  in  training  the  rising- 
generation,  are  tinctured  by  sectarian  peculiarities,  whilst  others 
are  professedly  sectarian,  and  cannot  fail  to  leave  impressions 
unfriendly  to  the  cause  of  union.  Every  denomination  must 
indeed  have  full  liberty  to  use  such  works  for  purposes  of  in¬ 
struction  without  being  upbraided  :  yet  it  cannot  fail  to  be  per¬ 
ceived,  that  the  unity  of  Christ’s  body  will  be  best  subserved 
by  occupying  the  attention  of  children  mainly  with  the  ground 
and  common  truths  of  our  holy  religion,  by  preferring  elementary 
books  of  an  unsectarian  character,  and  by  the  early  use  of  the 
^  Bible  as  the  chief  book  of  study  and  instruction.  It  is  moreo¬ 
ver  due  to  that  blessed  volume,  that  it  should  not  only  be  called 
the  best  of  books,  but  also  treated  as  such ;  and  be  made  use  of 
on  all  suitable  occasions,  not  so  much  with  the  view  of  estab¬ 
lishing,  by  detached  quotations,  positions  already  made  out,  as 
for  the  analytic  study  of  the  book  itself.  For  this  cause  Bible 
classes  are  deserving  of  high  commendation,  even  admitting  that 
disputed  points  are  sometimes  discussed.  The  scholar  is  still 
employed  in  the  direct  study  of  the  word  of  God,  and  will  learn 
to  judge  for  himself.  Those  books  of  instruction,  such  as  the 
Bible  questions  of  the  American  Sunday  School  Union,  which 


90 


Dr.  Schmucker’’ s  Appeal. 


require  the  scholar  unavoidably  and  constantly  to  refer  to  the 
Bible  for  answers,  are  peculiarly  appropriate. 

In  theological  seminaries  also  the  Bible  should  as  much  as 
possible  be  made  the  subject  of  direct  study  on  all  the  different 
branches  of  theology  ;  and  on  every  topic  the  student  should 
be  required  to  search  the  Scriptures  for  himself,  and  present 
the  results  of  his  examination.  This  course  is  in  a  greater  or 
or  less  degree  already  pursued  in  many  of  our  principal 'schools 
of  the  prophets.  Yet  it  is  probable,  that  it  might  be  carried  to 
greater  extent.  In  Biblical  History,  in  Doctrinal,  Practical  and 
Polemical  Theology  this  plan  can  be  employed  with  the  utmost 
facility,  and  its  undoubted  tendency  is  to  obliterate  sectarian 
prejudices  and  distinctions,  and  to  promote  alike  Christian  union 
and  Bible  truth.  The  more  we  can  fix  the  attention  of  the 
student  to  the  word  of  God,  the  better  shall  we  be  able  to  raise 
up  a  generation  of  ministers  disengaged  from  the  shackles  of 
sectarianism,  and  firmly  planted  on  the  broad  platform  of  the 
Bible  ;  men  possessing  the  most  enlarged  views  of  the  Re¬ 
deemer’s  kingdom,  and  ready  to  devise  and  execute  millennial 
schemes  for  its  advancement. 

The  seventh  and  last  Feature",  of  union  is  that  mis¬ 
sionaries,  going  into  foreign  lands ,  ought  to  use  and,  profess 
no  other  than  this  common  creed,  the  Apostolic  Protestant 
Confession,  and  connect  with  it  whatever  form  of  church-gov¬ 
ernment  and  mode  of  worship  they  prefer. 

For  the  sake  of  our  bleeding  Saviour,  our  sectarian  divisions 
ought  not  to  be  carried  to  heathen  lands.  The  Protestant 
churches  amount  to  but  sixty  millions  out  of  seven  hundred 
millions,  the  probable  population  of  our  entire  globe,  and  ought 
not  to  spread  the  Corinthian  contagion  of  sectarianism  over  the 
gentile  world.  In  view  of  all  the  divisions  and  contentions, 
which  sectarianism  has  entailed  on  the  heritage  of  God,  how 
much  better  would  it  be,  that  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  in¬ 
structed  by  the  experience  of  three  hundred  years  of  discord  in 
the  household  of  faith,  should  settle  down  on  some  better  plan 
for  preserving  the  unity  of  the  church,  as  her  triumphs  are  ex¬ 
tending  into  heathen  countries  !  The  signs  of  the  times  impe¬ 
riously  call  us  to  this  duty  ;  and  a  more  convenient  season  can¬ 
not  be  expected  in  the  providence  of  God.  Deeply  impressed 
with  the  conviction  that  something  can,  and  therefore  something 
ought  to  be  done,  the  writer,  whose  attention  has  for  many 
years  been  directed  to  this  subject,  felt  constrained  to  address 


91 


Dr.  Schmucker' s  Appeal. 

this  fraternal  appeal  to  the  American  churches.  Whether  that 
Divine  Saviour,  who  has  promised  to  be  with  his  disciples  unto 
the  end  of  the  world,  will  incline  the  hearts  of  his  children  to 
heed  this  appeal,  the  future  must  develope.  But  whether  or 
not,  the  writer  feels,  that  he  will  have  discharged  a  solemn  du¬ 
ty,  and  he  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  some  good  will  ac¬ 
crue  to  the  kingdom  of  the  blessed  Saviour.  It  is  certainly 
supremely  desirable  that  the  unity  of  the  church  should  be  re¬ 
stored  in  Christian  lands,  and  that  the  sacramental  host  who  bear 
the  standard  of  the  cross  into  the  heathen  world,  should  present 
an  undivided  front.  Better  that  the  heathen  should  never  hear 
of  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  Arminius,  and  Wesley,  and  base 
their  religion  purely  on  the  Bible,  than  that  the  sectarian  divis¬ 
ions  connected  with  these  names  should  be  carried  among  them, 
still  to  vex,  and  agitate  and  paralize  the  church. 

Whilst  the  entire  pagan  world  is  before  them  no  two  sects 
ought  to  send  missionaries  into  the  same  district  of  country. 
Thus  the  immediate  collision  of  sects  would  be  prevented  for  a 
season.  Yet  if  they  take  with  them  their  extended  sectarian 
creeds,  it  will  not  be  long  before  dissenters  from  it,  will  grow 
up  among  their  own  disciples,  and  thus  the  old  evil  soon  return. 
But  if  a  creed  covering  only  the  common,  undisputed  ground 
of  Christianity  be  taken,  there  will  be  no  need  of  disciplining  any 
but  such  as  ought  to  be  excluded  from  all  Christian  churches, 
and  therefore  could  not  form  any  Christian  sect.  And  as  the 
Scriptures  present  us  with  no  entire  detailed  system  of  church- 
government,  our  predilections  on  that  subject  are  produced 
chiefly  by  the  influence  and  example  of  parents  and  teachers, 
and  there  is  little,  very  little  probability  of  secession  from  any  of 
the  churches  in  heathen  lands,  on  this  ground. 

In  addition  to  these  fundamental  features  of  the  projected 
union,  Christians  should  endeavor  gradually  to  restore  unity  or 
mutual  acknowledgement  in  name ,  as  well  as  in  the  thing. 
Geographical  names  should  be  adopted  for  all  catholic  or  vol¬ 
untary  associations,  which  may  be  erected.  In  this  respect  the 
American  Education,  Tract,  Bible,  Missionary  and  other  societies 
have  set  a  noble  example.  Each  denomination  should  speak 
of  itself  not  as  the  church,  but  as  a  branch  of  the  church.  How 
delightful  would  it  be,  to  hear  Christians  habitually  employing 
phraseology  indicative  of  their  unity,  and  to  hear  them  speak  of 
The  Lutheran  Branch  of  the  church, 

The  Episcopal  Branch  of  the  church, 


92 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


The  Presbyterian  Branch  of  the  church, 

The  Methodist  Branch  of  the  church,  etc.  etc. 

Thus  would  we  literally  verify  the  declaration  of  the  Lord’s 
prophet,  “  And  the  Lord  will  be  king  over  all  the  earth ;  in 
that  day  there  will  be  one  Lord  and  his  name  one.”  Zech.  14:  9. 

As  to  one  Supreme  Representative  Body ,  having  even  limit¬ 
ed  jurisdiction  over  all  the  confederated  bodies,  for  which  some 
may  have  been  looking  as  a  feature  of  this  plan  of  union — there 
was  none  such  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  we  need  none.  The 
tendency  of  such  bodies  is  naturally  to  an  increase  of  power — 
they  are  the  foster-mothers  of  papacy,  and  dangerous  to  true 
liberty  of  conscience. 

Should  any  circumstances  in  the  Providence  of  God,  here¬ 
after  render  it  necessary,  and  the  great  body  of  the  confederated 
denominations  unite  in  the  call,  a  mere  advisory  council  might 
be  convened,  consisting  of  a  small  senatorial  delegation,  in  equal 
numbers  from  each  denomination,  without  legislative  or  judicial 
power,  its  advice  to  be  confined  to  the  general  interests  of  the 
Redeemer’s  kingdom.  Yet  even  such  a  council  ought  not  to 
meet  statedly  nor  often,  and  forms  no  part  of  the  proposed  union. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Apostolic,  Protestant  Confession, 

for  which  the  reader  is  now  prepared,  is  nothing  more  than  a 
selection  of  such  articles  or  parts  of  articles,  on  the  topics  de¬ 
termined  by  the  several  confessions,  as  are  believed  by  all  the 
so-called  orthodox  churches.  Not  a  single  word  is  altered  or 
added.  The  authority  of  this  confession  is  based  on  the  fact, 
that  every  sentence,  every  idea  of  it,  has  been  sanctioned  by 
one  or  other  of  the  Protestant  conventions  that  adopted  the 
creeds  from  which  the  articles  are  selected,  and  by  the  denomi¬ 
nations  receiving  those  creeds.  The  whole  creed  has  therefore 
already  received  the  ecclesiastical  sanction  of  acknowledged 
churches.  Its  sanction  in  its  present  form  and  for  the  propo¬ 
sed  purpose ,  it  can  only  receive  by  the  successive  action  of  such 
ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  churches  and  individuals  as  in  the 
Providence  of  God  may  receive  it,  and  publish  their  assent  to  it, 
not  as  renouncing  any  of  their  former  opinions,  but  as  regarding 
this  as  the  test  for  discipline  and  communion. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


93 


The  Apostolic,  Protestant  Confession. 

Part  I.  The  Apostles’  Creed. 

“I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Maker  of  hea¬ 
ven  and  earth  :  And  in  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  Son  our  Lord  ; 
who  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  virgin  Ma¬ 
ry,  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead  and  bu¬ 
ried. — The  third  day  he  rose  from  the  dead,  he  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father  Al¬ 
mighty,  from  thence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and  the 
dead. 

“  I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  holy  catholic  or  universal 
church  ;  the  communion  of  saints  ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  life  everlasting.” 

Part  II.  The  United  Protestant  Confession. 

•  *  -/  '  '.It  .  , 

Art.  I.  Of  the  Scriptures. 

The  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  sal¬ 
vation  :  so  that  whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be 
proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that  it  should 
be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or 
necessary  to  salvation.1  Under  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures,  or  the  word  of  God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  are  these  : 

Genesis, 

Exodus, 

Leviticus, 

Numbers, 

Deuteronomy, 

Joshua, 

Judges, 

Ruth, 

I.  Samuel, 

II.  Samuel, 

I.  Kings, 

II.  Kings, 

I.  Chronicles, 

II.  Chronicles, 

Ezra, 


Nehemiah, 

Obadiah, 

Esther, 

Jonah, 

Job, 

Micah, 

Psalms, 

Nahum, 

Proverbs, 

Habakkuk, 

Ecclesiastes, 

Zephaniah, 

Song  of  Solomon, 

Haggai, 

Isaiah, 

Zechariah, 

Jeremiah, 

Malachi, 

Lamentations, 

Matthew, 

Ezekiel, 

Mark, 

Daniel, 

Luke, 

Hosea, 

John, 

Joel, 

Acts  of  the  Apostles, 

Amos, 

Epistle  to  the  Romans, 

1  Articles  of  the  Episcopal  church,  Art. 
of  the  Methodist  church,  Art.  V. 

13 


VI.  and  of  the  Discipline 


94 

Dr.  Schmuc'ke1', s  Appeal. 

I.  Corinthians, 

II.  Thessalonians, 

I.  Peter, 

II.  Corinthians, 

I.  Timothy, 

II.  Peter, 

Galatians, 

II.  Timothy, 

I.  John, 

Ephesians, 

Titus, 

II.  John, 

Philippians, 

Philemon, 

III.  John, 

Colossians, 

Hebrews, 

Jude, 

I.  Thessalonians, 

Epistle  of  James, 

Revelation. 

All  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  be  the  rule  of 
faith  and  life.  The  books  commonly  called  Apocrypha,  not 
being  of  divine  inspiration  are  no  part  ol  the  canon  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture.1 

Art.  II.  Of  God  and  the  Trinity . 

Our  churches  with  one  accord  teach,  that  there  is  one  God, 
eternal,  incorporeal,  indivisible,  infinite  in  power,  wisdom  and 
goodness,  the  creator  and  preserver  of  all  things  visible  and  in¬ 
visible  ;  and  yet,  that  there  are  three  persons,  who  are  of  the 
same  essence  and  power,  and  are  coeternal,  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.2 

Art.  III.  Of  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Atonement. 

They  likewise  teach,  that  the  Word,  that  is,  the  Son  of  God, 
assumed  human  nature,  so  that  the  two  natures  human  and  di¬ 
vine,  united  in  one  person,  constitute  one  Christ,  who  is  true 
God  and  man  ;  born  of  the  virgin  Mary  ;  and  truly  suffered, 
was  crucified,  died,  and  was  buried,  that  he  might  be  a  sacrifice 
for  the  sins  of  men.3 

Art.  IV.  Of  Human  'Depravity. 

God  having  made  a  covenant  of  works  and  of  life  thereupon 
with  our  first  parents ;  they,  seduced  by  the  subtilty  and  temp¬ 
tation  of  Satan,  did  wilfully  transgress  and  break  the  covenant 
by  eating  the  forbidden  fruit.4  By  this  sin  they  fell  from  their 

1  Ratio  Disciplinae  or  Constitution  of  the  Congregational  Churches, 
Art.  I.  §  2.  3.  and  Confession  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Art.  I.  §  2. 
3.  The  Calvinistic  Baptists  are  supposed  generally  to  agree  in  the 
views  of  this  Confession,  though  they  have  not  formally  adopted  it : 
and  the  Confession  of  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church  is  also  ot  the  same 
general  doctrinal  import. 

2  Lutheran  and  Moravian  (United  Brethren’s)  Confession,  Art.  I. 

3  Idem,  x4rt.  III.  according  to  the  translation  contained  in  the  wri¬ 

ter’s  “  Popular  Theology.”  4  Congregational,  Art.  VJ.  1. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


95 


original  righteousness  and  communion  with  God,  and  so  became 
dead  in  sin.1 II  They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  a  corrupted 
nature  is  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending  from  them 
by  ordinary  generation.2  The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall 
of  Adam,  is  such,3  that  his  will  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  ab¬ 
solute  necessity  of  nature  determined  to  do  good  or  evil  :4  but 
it  does  not  possess  the  power,  without  the  influence  of  the  Ho¬ 
ly  Spirit,  of  being  just  before  God.5 

Art.  V.  Of  Justification. 

We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  only  for  the  merit  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  by  faith  ;  and  not  for  our 
own  works  or  deservings.6  This  faith  must  bring  forth  good 
fruits  ;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  perform  those  good  works  which 
God  has  commanded,  because  he  has  enjoined  them,  and  not  in 
the  expectation  of  thereby  meriting  justification  before  him.7 
Good  works  cannot  put  away  our  sins,  and  endure  the  severity 
of  God’s  judgment.8 

Art.  VI.  Of  the  Church. 

The  visible  church,  which  is  catholic  or  universal  under  the 
Gospel  (not  confined  to  one  nation),  consists  of  all  those  through¬ 
out  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  and  is  the  kingdom 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Unto  this  catholic,  visible  church, 
Christ  hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles  and  ordinances  of  God.9 
For  the  true  unity  of  the  church,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
same  rites  and  ceremonies,  instituted  by  men,  should  be  every¬ 
where  observed.10  The  purest  churches  under  heaven  are 
subject  both  to  mixture  and  error  ;n  nevertheless,  Christ  always 
hath  had  and  ever  shall  have  a  visible  kingdom  in  this  world  to 
the  end  thereof,  of  such  as  believe  in  him  and  make  profession 

I  Presbyterian,  Art.  VI.  2.  2  Congregational,  Art.  VI.  3. 

3  Episcopal,  Art.  X.  4  Presbyt.  and  Congreg.  IX.  1. 

5  Lutheran  and  Moravian  Conf.  Art.  XVIII. 

6  Episcopal  Conf.  Art.  XI.  and  Methodist,  Art.  IX. 

7  Lutheran  and  Moravian  Conf.  Ait.  VI. 

8  Methodist  Discip.  Art.  X.  and  Episcopal  Conf.  Art.  XII. 

9  Presbyterian  Conf.  Art.  XXV.  2.  3. 

10  Lutheran  and  Moravian,  Art.  VII. 

II  Presb.  XXV.  3.  and  Cong.  XXVI.  3. 


96 


Dr.  Schmucker' s  Appeal. 


of  his  name. 1  There  is  no  other  head  of  the  church  but  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ :  nor  can  the  pope  of  Rome  in  any  sense  be 
the  head  thereof. 2 

Art.  VII.  Of  the  Sacraments ,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 

Supper. 

The  sacraments  were  instituted  not  only  as  marks  of  a  Chris¬ 
tian  profession  among  men ;  but  rather  as  signs  and  evidences 
of  the  divine  disposition  towards  us,  tendered  for  the  purpose  ol 
exciting  and  confirming  the  faith  of  those  who  use  them.3 
There  be  only  two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  our  Lord  in 
the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord. 4  Baptism  is  ordained  not  only  for  the  solemn  admission 
of  the  party  baptized  into  the  visible  church  ;  but  also  to  be 
unto  him  a  sign  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  of  regeneration,  of 
remission  of  sins,  and  of  his  giving  up  unto  God  through  Jesus 
Christ,  to  walk  in  newness  of  life.5  The  supper  ol  the  Lord 
is  not  only  a  sign  of  the  love  that  Christians  ought  to  have 
among  themselves  ;  but  rather  is  a  sacrament  of  our  redemption 
by  Christ’s  death.6 

In  this  sacrament  Christ  is  not  offered  up,  nor  any  real  sacri¬ 
fice  made  at  all,  for  remission  of  sins  of  the  quick  or  dead  ;  so 
that  the  popish  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  as  they  call  it,  is  most  in¬ 
jurious  to  Christ’s  one  only  sacrifice. 7  That  doctrine  which 
maintains  a  change  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  Christ’s  body  and 
blood  (commonly  called  transubstantiation)  by  consecration  of  a 
priest,  or  in  any  other  way,  is  repugnant  not  to  Scripture  alone, 
but  even  to  common  sense  and  reason.8  The  denying  of  the 
cup  to  the  people,  and  worshipping  the  elements,  or  carrying 
them  about  for  adoration,  are  all  contrary  to  the  institution  of 
Christ. 9 

1  Congregational  Conf.  Art.  XXVI.  3. 

2  Congr.  XXVI.  4.  and  Presb.  XXV.  6. 

3  Lutheran  and  Moravian  Conf.  Art.  XIII. 

4  Presb.  Art.  XXVII.  4.  and  Congr.  XXVIII.  4. 

5  Presb.  Art.  XXVIII.  1. 

6  Methodist  Disc.  Art.  XVIII.  and  Episc.  Art.  XXVIII. 

7  Presb.  Art.  XXIX.  2.  and  Cong.  XXX.  2. 

8  Presb.  Conf.  Art.  XXIX.  6.  and  Cong.  XXX.  6. 

9  Presb.  XXIX.  4.  Cong.  XXX.  4. 


Dr.  Schmucker’s  Appeal. 


97 


Art.  VIII.  Of  Purgatory ,  etc. 

The  Romish  doctrine  concerning  purgatory,  worshipping  as 
well  of  images  as  of  relics,  and  also  invocation  of  saints,  is  re¬ 
pugnant  to  the  word  of  God. 1 

Art.  IX.  Liberty  of  Conscience. 

God  alone  is  the  Lord  of  conscience  and  hath  left  it  free  from 
the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  which  are  in  any 
wise  contrary  to  his  word,  or  beside  it  in  matters  of  faith  or 
worship.  So  that  to  believe  such  doctrines  or  to  obey  such 
commandments  out  of  conscience,  is  to  betray  true  liberty  of 
conscience ;  and,  the  requiring  of  an  implicit  faith  and  an  ab¬ 
solute  and  blind  obedience  is  to  destroy  liberty  of  conscience 
and  reason  also.2 

Art.  X.  Of  Civil  Government. 

God  the  supreme  Lord  and  king  of  all  the  world,  hath  or¬ 
dained  civil  magistrates  to  be  under  him,  over  the  people,  for 
his  own  glory  and  the  public  good  ;  and  to  this  end  hath  armed 
them  with  power,  for  the  defence  and  encouragement  of  them 
that  do  good,  and  for  the  punishment  of  evil-doers.3  The  pow¬ 
er  of  the  civil  magistrate  extendeth  to  all  men,  as  well  clergy 
as  laity  in  things  temporal  ;  but  hath  no  authority  in  things 
purely  spiritual.4  Christians  ought  to  yield  obedience  to  the 
civil  officers  and  laws  of  the  land  :  unless  they  should  command 
something  sinful ;  in  which  case  it  is  a  duty  to  obey  God  rather 
than  man.5 

Art.  XI.  Communion  of  Saints. 

Saints  are  bound  to  maintain  an  holy  fellowship  and  commun¬ 
ion  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing  such  other  spirit¬ 
ual  services  as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification  :  As  also  in  re¬ 
lieving  each  other  in  outward  things,  according  to  their  several 
abilities  and  necessities ;  which  communion,  as  God  ofFereth 
opportunity,  is  to  be  extended  to  all  those  who  in  every  place 
call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.0 

1  Methodist  Disc.  Art.  XIV.  and  Episcopal,  Art.  XXII. 

2  Presb.  XX.  2.  3  Cong.  XXIV.  1.  and  Presb.  XXIII.  L 

4  Epise.  XXXVII.  5  Lutheran  and  Moravian,  Art.  XVI. 

6  Cong.  XXVII.  2.  and  Presb.  XXVI.  2. 


98 


Dr.  Schmucker' s  Appeal. 


Art.  XII.  Of  the  Future  Judgment  and  Retribution. 

At  the  end  of  the  world  Christ  will  appear  for  judgment,  he 
will  raise  the  dead,  he  will  give  to  the  pious  eternal  life  and 
endless  joys  ;  but  will  condemn  wicked  men  and  devils  to  be 
punished  without  end.1  As  Christ  would  have  us  to  be  cer¬ 
tainly  persuaded,  that  there  shall  be  a  day  of  judgment,  to  de¬ 
ter  all  men  from  sin ;  so  will  he  have  that  day  unknown  to 
men,  that  they  may  shake  off  all  carnal  security  and  be  always 
watchful,  because  they  know  not  at  what  hour  the  Lord  will 
come,  and  may  be  ever  prepared  to  say,  Come ,  Lord  Jesus, 
Come  quickly.  Amen.2 

Mode  of  Operation. 

It  only  remains  that  a  few  words  be  said  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  this  plan  could  with  very  little  delay  be  adopted  by  all 
who  approve  of  its  principles  and  are  desirous  of  cooperating  in 
restoring  unity  to  the  body  of  Christ. 

The  call  of  a  general  convention  of  all  the  friends  of  the 
cause  would  probably  not  be  expedient  nor  extensively  suc¬ 
cessful ;  nor  indeed  is  it  necessary. 

I.  Let  the  friends  of  union,  be  they  benevolent  individuals 
or  associations,  extensively  circulate  this  appeal  among  the  dif¬ 
ferent  churches,  ministers  and  laity. 

II.  Let  the  friends  of  the  cause  invite  the  different  ecclesias¬ 
tical  bodies  to  which  they  belong  to  investigate  the  plan,  and 
so  soon  as  they  approve  of  it  adopt  it  each  for  itself  and  resolve 
henceforth  to  act  upon  it. 

III.  If  any  orthodox  denomination  find  in  it  a  single  article 
or  sentence  or  idea,  which  positively,  (not  by  inference)  teaches 
what  they  regard  as  error,  let  them  strike  it  out,  and  adopt  the 
residue.  The  writer  is  however  not  aware  that  such  a  clause 
is  found  in  it.  Other  denominations  would  then  also  omit  it  as 
a  disputed  point,  not  belonging  to  the  common  ground  of  Pro¬ 
testantism,  and  the  residue  remain  as  the  United  Protestant 
Confession ,  regularly  adopted  by  the  confederated  denomina¬ 
tions. 

IV.  Let  vacant  churches,  and  Christians  of  different  denomi¬ 
nations  in  destitute  villages  and  neighborhoods  be  encouraged 

1  Lutheran  and  Moravian  Conf.  Art.  XVII. 

2  Presbyterian,  XXXIII.  3.  Congregational,  XXXII.  3. 


99 


Dr.  Schmucker* s  Appeal. 

to  unite  in  adopting  the  Apostolic  Protestant  Confession,  and 
plan  of  union,  and  join  in  calling  a  minister  of  any  one  of  the 
confederated  churches. 

V.  Let  each  of  the  confederated  denominations  and  mission¬ 
ary  societies  both  voluntary  and  denominational  resolve  not  to 
send  a  minister  into  any  village  or  neighborhood  already  ade¬ 
quately  supplied  by  a  minister  from  another  branch  of  the  union, 
but  advise  their  members  to  unite  with  their  confederated  breth¬ 
ren  in  supporting  the  minister  already  stationed  among  them, 
or  some  other  one  of  good  standing  in  either  of  the  confederated 
denominations,  in  whose  support  they  can  agree. 

VI.  Whenever  the  confederated  population  of  a  district  is 
unable  to  support  a  minister,  let  application  be  made  to  the 
proper  officers  of  the  missionary  society  of  their  choice,  for  such 
aid  as  they  may  need. 

V II.  Let  the  education  and  missionary  societies  of  the  con¬ 
federated  churches  confer  with  each  other,  adopt  rules  of  co¬ 
operation,  and  resolve  with  renewed  ardor  by  the  help  of  God 
to  supply  every  destitute  place  in  our  land  with  faithful  minis¬ 
ters,  and  labor  with  re-doubled  zeal  in  the  definite  enterprise  of 
sending  the  Gospel  to  every  rational  creature  throughout  “  the 
field  of  the  world.” 

This  plan  would  tend  to  produce  unity  of  spirit  first,  whilst 
it  will  prepare  the  way  for  greater  unity  in  external  forms  ;  if 
the  Lord  designs  to  effect  it.  If  its  prominent  features  were 
faithfully  carried  out,  the  Protestant  church  would  present  as 
much  external  unity  of  organization,  as  that  of  the  apostolic  age, 
and  therefore  in  all  probability  as  much  as  is  desirable ;  whilst, 
happy  consummation  !  the  members  of  the  Saviour’s  body  would 
again  have  the  same  care  one  for  another ;  and  whether  one 
member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it,  or  one  member 
be  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it !  and  the  intellect  of 
the  Christian  church  would  no  longer  be  expended  in  internal 
contentions,  but  all  her  energies  be  directed  to  the  conversion  of 
the  world. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  commend  this  humble,  well-meant  ef¬ 
fort  to  the  blessing  of  that  divine  Saviour,  who  has  watched  over 
his  church  amidst  all  the  vicissitudes  of  her  history.  If  this  plan  is 
accordant  with  his  will,  may  he  graciously  accept  and  prosper 
it ;  and  if  not,  may  he  defeat  it,  and  at  the  day  of  final  account, 
regard  with  favor  the  upright  intention  from  which  it  has  ema¬ 
nated  ! 


NOTE. 

To  prevent  the  misapprehension  of  some  remarks,  which  might 
otherwise  naturally  be  regarded  as  allusions  to  more  recent  events, 
it  is  proper  to  inform  the  reader,  that  the  whole  of  the  preceding  Ap¬ 
peal  was  written  more  than  a  year  ago,  and  therefore  prior  to  the  exci¬ 
sion  of  a  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  church  by  the  last  General  Assem¬ 
bly. 

As  a  disciple  of  the  common  Saviour,  the  writer  feels  a  sincere 
desire  for  the  prosperity  of  every  protestant  fundamentally  orthodox 
denomination,  and  for  another  “  blessed  Reformation”  in  the  entire 
Romish  church  itself.  As  such,  he  feels  it  his  privilege  and  duty  to 
address  a  few  ideas  to  his  Protestant  brethren  generally,  on  the  re¬ 
lations  which  do  or  ought  to  subsist  between  the  different  portions 
of  Christ’s  kingdom.  And  he  would  respectfully  and  affectionately 
request  them  to  test  the  sentiments  advanced,  not  by  their  ecclesiastical 
standards,  which  are  the  work  of  uninspired  though  good  men,  but  by 
the  “  law  and  the  testimony,”  by  the  inspired  rule  of  God’s  holy  word. 
Let  them  solemnly  inquire  whether  the  Protestant  churches  organ¬ 
ized  and  operating  on  the  principles,  fully  developed  in  this  Appeal, 
would  not  approximate  much  nearer  to  the  apostolic  church,  than 
they  now  do  ;  whether  they  could  not  act  much  more  efficiently  and 
harmoniously  in  advancing  the  triumphs  of  the  cross  in  the  heathen 
and  the  papal  world  ;  and  whether  we  might  not  even  hope  again  to  see 
the  days,  when  surrounding  observers  will  exclaim  :  “  See  how  these 
Christians  love  one  another  ?” 


Date  Due 

mna; 

-  ■■ f*' 

M  AV 

*  -*## 

•"*  .  , 

- S-M  f  -V"? - 

9  f  I  r*  * 

- *m - 

;''■  i  •>■'  .i' 

ft 

i  v 

- Vliiii  - 

JjW^Mttvn’?.  V 

mt  rm' 

«WM. 

♦ 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

